Jus Spatiandi after Dewhurst v Hodge – New Square Chambers

Posted January 4th, 2024 in chambers articles, news, prescription, rights of way by sally

‘This case involved the registration of a prescriptive right way to a residential property. The right of way sought to be registered was described in box 9 of the ST4 accompanying the AP1 application form dated 22nd May 2020 as:
“A right of way by foot in the field immediately to the south-east of the boundary of WA452860 being part of CYM717554 as marked in green on the attached plan marked as PLAN 3”.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 8th December 2023

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Churchyard access and prescriptive right of way: Hughes – Law & Religion UK

Posted August 10th, 2021 in easements, land registration, news, prescription, rights of way by sally

‘In Hughes v Incumbent of the benefice of Frampton-on-Severn, Arlingham, Saul, Fretherne & Framilode [2021] UKUT 184 (LC), the incumbent of St James’s Saul, one of the churches in the Severnside group of parishes in Gloucestershire, applied to HM Land Registry in 2018 for a vehicular right of way for the benefit of the church over land belonging to the neighbouring property, a former school site next to the church. It was claimed that the track had been used by successive incumbents and their visitors – visiting clergy, people tending graves, and the funeral director ­– for more than twenty years for access to the grass where vehicles parked to gain access to the churchyard and church [7]. The neighbouring owners, Mr and Mrs Hughes (who had bought the property from the previous owners, Mr and Mrs West), objected, the matter was referred to the First Tier Tribunal pursuant to s.73(7) Land Registration Act 2002, and the FTT directed the registrar to register the easement [1]. Mr and Mrs Hughes appealed.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 10th August 2021

Source: lawandreligionuk.com

Prescription drugs review call after Bedford man’s death – BBC News

Posted November 13th, 2019 in coroners, inquests, medicines, news, prescription by sally

‘Prescription guidelines should be changed after a man died from using two medicines together, a coroner warned.’

Full Story

BBC News, 13th November 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Winterburn and another v Bennett and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 8th, 2016 in appeals, easements, law reports, parking, prescription, rights of way, tribunals by sally

Winterburn and another v Bennett and another [2016] EWCA Civ 482

‘The claimant owners of a fish and chip shop claimed as a result of use over a number of years to have acquired by prescription the right for themselves and others using their premises to park on land comprising part of a car park belonging to the defendants. The defendants’ premises, which were next to the car park, had been used as a club and users of those premises used the car park. The entrance to the car park was adjacent to the claimants’ shop. The claimants had operated the shop from about 1987 or 1988 until 2012. Throughout that time, their suppliers had up to nine times a week pulled off the road into the disputed part of the car park and parked there for long enough to make their deliveries, and their customers had parked on the disputed land while they bought their fish and chips. On the whole that use of part of the car park did not interfere with the s’ operations but over a seven-year period there were 12 to 15 occasions on which the defendants asserted ownership of the disputed land, and, expressly or impliedly, asserted that the claimants and their suppliers and customers had no right to park on it. At all times until 2007 there was a sign attached to the wall of the building on one side of the entranceway to the car park, erected on behalf of the defendants, stating “Private car park. For the use of Club patrons only. By order of the Committee”, and a similar sign in the window of the club premises. The claimants claimed that their right to park, acquired by prescription by “lost modern grant”, had been established by their 20 years’ uninterrupted user “as of right”, namely, without force, without secrecy and without permission. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the two signs were clearly visible, they were insufficient to prevent the claimants from acquiring the claimed parking rights. The Upper Tribunal allowed the defendants’ appeal, reversing that finding.’

WLR Daily, 25th May 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in Crown, fisheries, law reports, prescription by sally

Loose v Lynn Shell Fish Ltd and others (Le Strange Meakin, Part 20 defendant) (Crown Estate Comrs intervening) [2016] UKSC 14

‘An estate adjoining the foreshore on the east side of the Wash owned a private fishery with an exclusive right to take shellfish over part of the foreshore. In 1970 the estate granted a lease of that exclusive right to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants alleging that they had been fishing for cockles in areas of foreshore which were part of the private fishery of which he was the lessee. The defendants accepted that a private fishery had been established by prescription but disputed its extent. In particular, they contended that it did not extend to large sandbanks which had been detached from the foreshore until the channels separating them had silted up; that such sandbanks were not subject to the doctrine of accretion, properly understood; and that, even if they were, it would not follow that the fishery rights had increased commensurately since that would have required a Crown grant and the power of the Crown to make such a grant had been removed by Magna Carta. The judge, however, held that the terms of the grant presumed as a result of the past prescriptive activities was a grant before 1189 of a fishery extending over the whole of the foreshore as it varied from time to time, and accordingly included the sandbanks; that on that basis, the defendants were liable in damages; and that the most practical of the various alternative lines put forward as the defined seaward boundary of the fishery was the mean low water mark of spring tides, rather than extreme low water as contended for by the claimant. The defendants appealed and the claimant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and held that as conditions changed and more or less of the seabed was exposed at low water, the area of the private fishery would expand or shrink, and held, allowing the claimant’s cross-appeal in part, that the fishery extended in law as far as lowest astronomical tide, which was the lowest point to which the tide fell as a result of normal astronomical forces.’

WLR Daily, 13th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Littlejohns and another) v Devon County Council – WLR Daily

Regina (Littlejohns and another) v Devon County Council [2015] EWHC 730 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 136

‘The transitional provisions in Schedule 3 to the Commons Act 2006 provided a brief window within which the commons register could be updated and corrected by incorporating any registrations which could have been, but were not, made under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Thereafter, any unregistered rights would be extinguished under paragraph 3 to the Schedule, repeating the legislative approach adopted in section 1(2)(b) of the 1965 Act.’

WLR Daily, 24th March 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

David T. Morrison & Co Limited t/a Gael Home Interiors (Respondent) v ICL Plastics Limited and others (Appellants) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

David T. Morrison & Co Limited t/a Gael Home Interiors (Respondent) v ICL Plastics Limited and others (Appellants) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 48 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 30th July 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

G and S Brough Ltd v Salvage Wharf Ltd and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted March 2nd, 2009 in law reports, prescription, right to light by sally

G and S Brough Ltd v Salvage Wharf Ltd and Another

Court of Appeal

“A property owner who made an agreement with a developer as to his prescriptive rights to light in respect of a development which would have had a minimal impact on the light to that property, did not lose those rights to light, so that a developer whose later redevelopment would extinguish those rights to light could not rely on the earlier agreement to defeat the owner’s rights.”

The Times, 2nd March 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 from the date of publication.