Land - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 182 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Bristol and West Building Society -v- Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000 CA	Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.

Stevenson -v- Johnson [2000] EW CA Civ
2000 CA Bennett LJ	Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court looked at what was necessary to suggest the compromise of a land dispute: "In summary, in my judgment, the judge was right to find an agreement between Mr Vane and the defendants. It is not strictly necessary for a court to have to find an offer and an acceptance. The course of the parties’ conduct, that is to say, Mr Vane and the defendants, should be looked at and if, on the balance of probabilities, an agreement is established, that is sufficient. In my judgment, the conduct of Mr Vane and the defendants does establish such an agreement.”

Hare -v- Gilman and another [2000] 80 P&CR 108
2000	Land	Casemap 1 Citers

Hair -v- Gillman [2000] 3 EGLR 76
2000	Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers

Re Jilla's Application [2000] 2 EGLR 99
2000	Land	Casemap 1 Citers

Clarke -v- Highways Agency [2000] EWLands LCA_92_1999
10 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Norman Charles Buckland and Patricia Joan Buckland and David Hubert Capel -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 279
11 Jan 2000 Admn	Land, Road Traffic
	For a track to be deemed to be a byway open to all traffic, there was no need to prove vehicular use, nor both pedestrian and equestrian use. It was necessary however to show that the use by foot and horse combined exceeded on balance use by vehicles. The definition in the Act is clear; it must be 'a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose of for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.'
	Wildlife and Countryside Act 1961 66(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Phyllis Trading Ltd -v- 86 Lordship Road Ltd [2000] EWLands LRA_16_1999
11 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Global Financial Recoveries Ltd -v- Jones [2000] BPIR 1029
13 Jan 2000 ChD	Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation	Casemap
	The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.
	Limitation Act 1980

Nicholls -v- Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_141_1997
14 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

F Cross & Sons Ltd -v- Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_20_1998
17 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

F Cross & Sons Ltd -v- Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_21_1998
17 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

F Cross & Sons Ltd -v- Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_22_1998
17 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

F Cross & Sons Ltd -v- Spencer (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_19_1998
17 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Speedwell Estates Ltd, Re [2000] EWLands LRA_30_1999
17 Jan 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Target Home Loans Ltd -v- Iza Ltd
20 Jan 2000 CC	Landlord and Tenant, Land
	(Central London County Court) The bank recovered possession of leasehold premises. The landlord served a notice requiring repairs on the tenant, but refused to allow the mortgage in possession a key to enter the property. They then claimed to have recovered possession peacefully. The bank applied for relief from forfeiture and succeeded. The notice was pointlessly served on the tenant who no longer had access to carry out any repairs, and the counter-notice was effective.
	Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938

Regina -v- Anglian Water Servies, ex Parte Three Valleys Water Plc
20 Jan 2000 QBD	Land, Environment, Utilities
	The respondent was successor to the owners of a reservoir, and the applicants sought to increase the amount of water they could draw daily. It was agreed that the respondent was not a statutory water undertaker, and the extent of the applicants right of supply was governed by the Act establishing the right to draw water. Still, the applicants were not entitled to the full amount of water supply they sought.

John Trevelyan (Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Members of Ramblers Association) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2000] EWHC Admin 282
24 Jan 2000 Admn Latham J	Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An inspector determining an application to remove a public bridleway from the definitive map, where there was evidence only of use by foot, was right to start from the presumption that, if a right of way was shown on the definitive map, it was correctly registered. Nevertheless, where there had been no evidence to support the registration, it could be treated as registered in error. Correction of the register was possible by ordering deletion of the bridleway, subject to substitution by a footpath. The inspector could look beyond the registration.
	Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Sch 15 12
	Link[s] omitted

Burton -v- Mayor Etc of The London Borough of Camden [2000] UKHL 8; [2000] 2 AC 399; [2000] 1 All ER 943; [2000] 2 WLR 427
27 Jan 2000 HL	Land, Benefits
	One tenant left the other in a flat subject to a protected secure tenancy. The legislation prohibited assignment of such tenancies. In order to support an application by the remaining tenant the departing tenant executed a deed purporting to release her interest in the tenancy. It was held that arcane notions of the ownership of the entire property by each of two joint tenants should not be used to get around the legislation, Whether expressed as assignment, surrender, release or otherwise, it could not change the nature of the tenancy.
	Housing Act 1985
	Link[s] omitted

Berrill (T/A Cobweb Antiques) -v- Hill (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_34_1999
2 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Somers Dutton & Nicholas Mark Somers Dutton -v- Andrew Robert Piers Dutton & David Brown [2000] EWHC Ch 167
3 Feb 2000 ChD Honourable Mrs Justice Arden DBE	Wills and Probate, Land	Casemap 1 Cites
	An option was granted by the will. Its validity was challenged because of difficulties in the method of reaching a valuation. It was occupied and it could not be agreed whether an assumption was to be made that the occupier would consent to the sale.
	Link[s] omitted

Adam -v- Woking Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_88_1999
7 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesby, Warwickshire and Another Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 30 March 2000
7 Feb 2000 ChD Ferris J	Human Rights, Land, Ecclesiastical	Casemap 1 Citers
	A lay rector could be liable for the physical upkeep of the chancel of the church by virtue of the Act, and such liability was not removed by the new Human Rights Act. Such liability could exist whether or not he had notice of the liability when purchasing land which had been part of the rectorship, and whether or not he was a lay or spiritual rector. Such an imposition may well not be capable of being set aside under the new Act when it comes into force. The law relating to chancel repairs did not involve a deprivation of possessions. The liability to repair the chancel is one of the incidents of ownership of land allotted under the inclosure award in lieu of tithe or other rectorial property. It is an unusual incident not amounting to a charge on the land, not limited to the value of the land and in imposing a personal liability on the owner of the land, but it cannot be distinguished from the liability which would attach to the owner of land which is purchased subject to a mortgage, restrictive covenant or other incumbrance created by a predecessor in title.
	Chancel Repairs Act 1932 5 - Human Rights Act 1998 5

Struggles and others -v- Lloyds TSB plc
10 Feb 2000 TCC	Land, Banking
	A mineral quarry was repossessed under a mortgage and attempts were made to sell it. A claim that it had been sold at an undervalue was defeated. The valuation of such an asset was to make allowance for capitalisation of the income stream from mineral royalties. The sale of the property had been delayed long enough to allow a proper valuation, and a further sale would have put the bank at risk of other allegations. The bank had obtained the best price reasonably obtainable.

Ryde International Plc -v- London Regional Transport [2000] EWLands ACQ_147_2000
12 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Hooper -v- City & County of Swansea [2000] EWLands ACQ_68_1997
15 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Visible Information Packaged Systems Ltd and Another -v- Wilson [2000] EWLands LRA_37_1998
16 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mooney -v- West Lindsey District Council [2000] EWLands LCA_98_1999
16 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex Parte Plymouth City Airport
17 Feb 2000 QBD	Land
	The airport was the operator liable for compensation. The apron was extended to allow for two helicopters to be based at the airport, and a neighbouring householder claimed compensation for loss to the value of his house. Whether the development was substantial, was not absolute, but relative to the size of the airport, and the important time was the time of the development works. The certificate from the Secretary of State that the works were apron alterations stood.

Newell and others -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and Another; Fletcher Estates (Harlescott) Ltd -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [2000] UKHL 10; [2000] 2 AC 307; [2000] 1 All ER 929; [2000] 2 WLR 438
17 Feb 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where a certificate of appropriate development was issued for land to be acquired compulsorily, the land was to be valued at the date of the proposal to acquire it compulsorily allowing a discount for any damage to the value incurred by the long expectation of that particular proposal and its consequences and not by reference to another proposal which it replaced.
	Land Compensation Act 1961 22(2) - Planning and Compensation Act 1991 65(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Felgate (Vo) -v- Lotus Leisure Enterprises Ltd [2000] EWLands RA_378_1996
18 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Fraser and Another -v- Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance
22 Feb 2000 ChD	Land, Ecclesiastical, Education	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where land had been acquired under the Act on trusts related specifically to the provision of education in accordance with a specified religion, the abandonment by the school of that purpose meant that the land reverted immediately to the original donor. It was clear that the trust established was not merely for educational purposes where the religious element was incidental. That element was the purpose of the gift.
	School Sites Act 1841

Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another -v- Scarborough Borough Council [2000] QB 836; [2000] EWCA Civ 51; [2000] 2 All ER 705
22 Feb 2000 CA Stuart-Smith LJ	Land, Torts - Other, Nuisance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant's hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion. Held. The owner of a servient tenement was under a duty to take positive steps to provide support for a neighbour's land. There was no difference in principle between the danger caused by loss of support and any other hazard or nuisance on the Defendant's land, such as the encroachment of some obnoxious thing, which affected the Claimant's use and enjoyment of his land. Where the question was not whether the Defendant had created the nuisance but whether he had adopted or continued it, there was no reason why different principles should apply to one kind of nuisance rather than another. In each case, liability only arose if there was negligence and the duty to abate the nuisance arose from the Defendant's knowledge of the hazard which would affect his neighbour. The owner of the lower land would be liable where the condition was known, or deemed to be known, and the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Where however the damage was so extensive as not to be foreseeable, liability was not established.
	Link[s] omitted

Scottish & Newcastle Retail Ltd -v- Williams (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_480_1993
22 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mortgage Corporation Ltd -v- Shaire and Another [2000] 1 FLR 973; [2001] Ch 743; [2000] EWHC Ch 452
25 Feb 2000 ChD Neuberger J	Land, Banking, Trusts	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged. Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside those of, for example, children living in the house. This might act to the detriment of banks, and the old authorities, whilst not entirely irrelevant, should be viewed with caution. Where the parties have reached a consensus on the beneficial interests in the property, the court will give effect to it, unless there is very good reason for not doing so, such as a subsequent renegotiation.
	Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14 15 - Law of Property Act 1925 30
	Link[s] omitted

Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions and Another -v- Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 60; [2001] QB 59; [2000] 2 PLR 84
25 Feb 2000 CA	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The meaning of 'curtilage' whilst not strictly a term of art had caused considerable difficulties. There was nothing inherent in the concept to imply any limitation that the area should be small. In this case the curtilage of a manor house could clearly include stable houses 200 meters from the main house. Accordingly those buildings were included within the property subject to the listed buildings order. The general legislative purpose of both regimes is the protection of the national heritage, and the particular purpose of the extending provisions is to ensure that not only the heritage property itself, but also its fixtures and its environment, are protected.
	Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 61(7)
	Link[s] omitted

Smith -v- Highway Agency [2000] EWLands LCA_123_1999
25 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

(Un-named) [2000] EWLands ACQ_90_1999
25 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Christie -v- Hudson (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_33_1999
25 Feb 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Herkanaidu -v- Lambeth London Borough Council
28 Feb 2000 ChD	Land
	The existence of a local land charge was not a matter going to the title of the property, but was something to be dealt with properly and simply in the normal course of the conveyancing process, and so could not be used as founding the right of a vendor unwilling to remove the charge, to rescind the contract. In any event, in this case, the request by the vendor for further time to comply with the request operated to remove any right to rescission.

Regina -v- Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls (2000) 32 HLR 770
1 Mar 2000 CA Laws LJ, Jonathan Parker LK, Evans LJ	Local Government, Housing, Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as to allow further building. He had obtained planning permission for the proposed development. When the council refused, the surviving purchaser sought judicial review of that refusal. Held: The purchaser's appeal succeeded. The council had confirmed that the property had been sold at its full market value, without any adjustment to reflect any possible development value, but then adjusted with the appropiate discount. The council now said that it had imposed the covenant in order to retain to itself any development value. It is established law that a council may act under any Act only for purposes allowed by that enabling Act. Despite its assertion, the council had not imposed the covenant with a view to assist in making the properties more affordable generally. The Act set out the elements to be considered in setting the valuation. The purpose of reserving any development value to itself was not one permitted by the Act under which it had been sold. The purpose of the Act was to permit former tenants to enjoy the full range of benefits of land ownership as were enjoyed by other land owners. What was reasonable was what would be reasonable to both parties, not just one. The council might reserve rights which properly affected its remaining estate, for example in the control of noise or other nuisance, but this was not such a purpose. The restrictive covenant was void and the council could not demand any payment for its removal. Laws LJ considered the principle in Padfield: "The rule is not that the exercise of the power is only to be condemned if it is incapable of promoting the Act's policy, rather the question always is: what was the decision-maker's purpose in the instant case and was it calculated to promote the policy of the Act?"
	Housing Act 1985 127(2) Sch6 para 5

Coupar -v- London Borough of Newham [2000] EWLands ACQ_59_1999
3 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Willingale -v- Global Grange Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 55
13 Mar 2000 CA Waller LJ, May LJ	Landlord and Tenant, Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	The tenants of a block of flats issued a notice wanting to purchase the freehold at a price. The landlord failed to serve the appropriate counter-notice, and the tenants applied to court. The landlord asked the court to exercise its discretion to award greater compensation. The court, and the appeal court declined. There was no discretion as to the terms of the sale in the absence of a counter-notice, despite the use of the word 'may' in the section: "may" in section 47(1) meant "must".
	Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 13
	Link[s] omitted

Unknown -v- Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_62_1999
14 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

J A Pye and Another -v- Graham and Another [2000] Ch 676; [2000] 3 All ER 865
14 Mar 2000 ChD Neuberger J	Agriculture, Land, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company's title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. "[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye's inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]...) 'arrive at with no enthusiasm'.”
	Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17

Dunnetts (Birmingham) Ltd -v- Gutt (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_28_1999
15 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Munro and Another -v- Premier Associates Ltd
16 Mar 2000 ChD	Land, Contract
	Property was agreed to be sold, but the land certificate was lost. A condition was added to the contract fixing the completion date as three days after notification of receipt of the new certificate. The parties agreed a date in anticipation of the certificate being received, but the purchaser did not wish to proceed for other reasons. A completion notice was served which he challenged, saying the notice had not been given. It was held that parties to such transactions were as much bound by estoppel and waiver as otherwise. The behaviour of the parties created such and the notice was effective.

Pollard and Another -v- Ashurst
16 Mar 2000 ChD	Insolvency, International, Land
	Where a bankrupt was joint owner of property abroad but within the European Community, an English court could order the property to be sold and the proceeds paid to the trustee. Such an order could not be made against the land itself, but could be effective against the bankrupt in personam. The bankrupt and his wife could be ordered to sell the property at the best price reasonably obtainable, or to require the conveyance of the property to the trustee.
	Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395) - Insolvency Act 1986 436

Lillis -v- North West Water Ltd [2000] EWLands LCA_131_1997
16 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

London Borough of Lambeth -v- Vincent and Others
16 Mar 2000 ChD	Land
	The buyers agreed to purchase a property at auction, but having failed to complete they were served with a notice to complete. They challenged that notice saying there was an outstanding writ for possession against the property, and that ministerial consent had not been obtained for the sale. It was held that the claim for forfeiture did not bring the lease to an end, and in this case was clearly unsustainable in law. Nor did the lack of ministerial consent vitiate the lease. The challenges did not go to title and the notice to complete stood.
	Housing Act 1985 32 (3)

Jenmain Builders and Others -v- Steed & Steed (A Firm) 2000 BNLR 616
20 Mar 2000 CA Chadwick LJ	Professional Negligence, Land, Damages	Casemap
	The defendant firm of solicitors acted on the sale of property, but failed to notify a purchaser that he was in a contract race and that another contract had been sent out. The claimant would have been able to exchange, and to have acquired the property. Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own professional rules and were liable, even though in this case the damages were minimal in the absence of any proof of loss of profits. Chadwick LJ said:- "This was a property with development potential. It is common ground that this property was no longer to be used as a village hall. It would have to be used for some other purpose; and there would have to be some development so that it could be used for that purpose. The question was: for what development could planning permission be obtained and how valuable would the property be on completion of that development? But those are the factors which a properly informed market will take into account in fixing the market value of property. The profit potential of the property is an element to be taken into account in fixing its market value. It is not suggested that there was anything special about this property to the appellants as purchasers. It is not suggested that there were not other developers in the market for property of this nature who could have made a proper assessment of the value of this property. The problem for the appellants in the present case is that they never sought to persuade the judge - and never adduced evidence to establish - that the market value of this property, Dukes Hall, was anything greater than the £67,500 which the Parish Council was seeking. It is for those reasons that the claim for loss of profits is one which the court could not entertain in this case. . . In the present case, there is no evidence that these appellants would not have been able to purchase other property in the market which they could develop profitably with the use of the money which they did not lay out in the purchase of Dukes Hall. There is no evidence that the respondents, insofar as their duty lay in contract, were aware of any special circumstances which made it impossible for the respondents to employ their funds in the ordinary course of their business, or of any circumstances which suggested that this property was being sold at an under-value. Indeed, in the circumstances that they were acting for the vendors, the Parish Council, it would be most unlikely that they would regard the property as being sold at an under- value rather than at market price".

Rt Hon Herbert Robert Cayzer Baron Rotherwick, Executors of the Estate of -v- Oxfordshire County Council [2000] EWLands LCA_43_1999
21 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	LT COMPENSATION - limitation of actions - footpath creation order under Highways Act 1980 section 28 - Limitation Act 1980 sections 9 and 39 - estoppel by convention - parties negotiating outside limitation period on basis that claim enforceable - notice given of compensating authority's intention to take limitation point - claim held to be subject to Limitation Act - compensating authority held to be estopped until opportunity given to claimant to make reference - claimant failing to make reference within reasonable time after notice of authority's reliance on Limitation Act - claim dismissed.
	Limitation Act 1980
	Link[s] omitted

Unknown -v- Newport County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_102_1999
23 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Wilkinson -v- Chief Adjudication Officer [2000] EWCA Civ 88
24 Mar 2000 CA Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Potter and Lord Justice Mummery	Land, Benefits	Casemap
	The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother's wishes.
	Income Support (General) Regulations 1987
	Link[s] omitted

John Lyon's Charity -v- Shalson [2000] EWLands LRA_7_2000
26 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

London Borough of Wandsworth -v- Griffin and Another [2000] EWLands LRX_40_1999
27 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Bistern Estate Trust, Re LRA/27/1999; [2000] EWLands LRA_27_1999
27 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

X -v- A, B, C [2000] EWHC Ch 121
29 Mar 2000 ChD	Land, Nuisance, Environment, Trusts	Casemap
	Trustees sought guidance from the court as to investment in land which might become a liability because of clean up costs associated with the Act when it came into force. Would the trustees have a lien over other property of the deceased to pay the costs? Held: A trustee has a lien over the trust fund for his proper costs and expenses extending to an indemnity against all future liabilities of the trustee as such. The wide powers of investment did not displace the duty to act with prudence and fairly as between the beneficiaries. Whilst the trustees may not be obliged to act under the direction of the beneficiaries it remained proper to require the trustees to consult with them on such decisions.
	Environmental Protection Act 1990
	Link[s] omitted

Bhattacharjee -v- Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_10_1999
30 Mar 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Franks & Faith (T/A Ground Rent Securities) -v- Towse [2000] EWLands LRA_31_1999
4 Apr 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd -v- Tugwell (2001) 81 P&C R 10
4 Apr 2000 CA Aldous and Waller LJJ and Rougier J	Land, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	A company was granted a licence to enter on land, for surveys and technical investigations, with a view eventually to its purchase. The land was occupied by protesters, and the company sought an injunction to exclude them. It was held that the licence did not give a right to occupy the land to the exclusion of others, and therefore, they had insufficient degree of occupation of the land to found an application to exclude the protesters. Something beyond just the right to enter the land is required. "he places emphasis on the fact that the right is to enter and occupy. It seems to me that there is a clear difference between a licence granted for the purpose of access, which does not provide effective control over the land, and a license to occupy which does."
	Rules of the Supreme Court Order 113

Franks & Faith (T/A Ground Rent Securities) -v- Towse [2000] EWLands LRA_2_1999
4 Apr 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383; [2000] RTR 27; [2000] 4 All ER 169
5 Apr 2000 CA Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May	Land, Torts - Other, Road Traffic	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect. Where, as here, the driver persuaded the court that she had not seen the notices, the clamping remained unlawful. No malice was intended, and no punitive damages could be awarded. "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning." The Recorder had held, correctly, that the appellant by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, he then jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the Recorder fell into error.
	Link[s] omitted

Hampshire County Council -v- Gillingham and Gillingham [2000] EWCA Civ 105
5 Apr 2000 CA Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	The council obtained a county court order against the defendants to remove a wooden gate and concrete hanging post, and an injunction prohibiting them from placing a gate, fence or other obstruction on a public footpath. Attempting to defuse the dispute, the council had written appearing suggesting that an 8 foot gap was provided for public use. The county court judge held that the public were entitled to the full width of the footpath. The council were not estopped from asserting the rights of the public; any acquiescence by them in unlawful obstruction of footpaths and rights of way could not affect the position. At a point where the track was 16 feet 6 inches wide, the defendants maintained that there was an 8 feet wide gap between the gate and the opposite hedge. The judge rejected that, since the gate and concrete post there obstructed the public from enjoying the full width of the footpath. Held. Once the judge was satisfied that the defendants had obstructed a public footpath, he was entitled to order them to take the gate and concrete post down "so that the public could enjoy their rights without obstruction". As to estoppel, the mere consent of a highway authority to an obstruction on the highway was ineffectual for the purposes of legalising it, and where a statute, like section 130 of the 1980 Act, enacted for the benefit of a section of the public, imposed a duty of a positive kind, the person charged with the performance of the duty could not by estoppel be prevented from exercising statutory powers. As to the argument that the judge ought to have disregarded the encroachment of the gate as de minimis, Brooke LJ said: "The flaw in this argument is that as a matter of law members of the public are entitled to utilise the full width of any footpath over which they have rights of way, subject to a very narrow de minimis exception: see Hertfordshire CC v Bolden (The Times, 9th December 1986) and Wolverton UDC v Willis [1962] 1 All ER 243. The Gillinghams' argument takes no account of the width of the enclosures mentioned in the Definitive Map. They do not appear to understand that the public is entitled to enjoy the full width of the land between the enclosures (as the judge correctly held)."
	Link[s] omitted

Crisa & Woodstock Engineering Ltd -v- Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_132_1998
6 Apr 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Attwood and Another -v- Bovis Homes Ltd [2001] Ch 371
18 Apr 2000 ChD	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	The dominant land, which had always been used for agricultural purposes, had a prescriptive right to drain surface water over neighbouring land. Though the proposed development of a housing estate on the dominant land, would be very substantial, the right could still be enjoyed and would not be lost. An easement had been acquired by prescription, but after such acquisition, the nature of the use of the dominant tenement changed, substantially increasing the burden of the easement. Held: Such increased usage could lead to a loss or suspension of the easement. The result might however differ according to the nature of the easement. It would be more readily follow in right of way cases than in rights of support. In this case a right of discharge of water from land developed from agricultural use would not lead to a loss of the easement.

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council -v- Tudor Properties Ltd and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 136; (2000) RVR 292
19 Apr 2000 CA	Land	Casemap 1 Cites
	The court had to consider the compensation to be awarded on the compulsory purchase of land. Held: The appeal failed. The tribunal had not erred in ascertaining the extent of the underlying scheme. In deciding that, they were entitled to have proper regard to the expert evidence. The reasons given were adequate to allow the parties to know the basis of the decision.
	Link[s] omitted

Wells -v- Bournemouth Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_171_1997
19 Apr 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Cottingham and Another -v- Attey Bower & Jones (A Firm) [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 591; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 591
19 Apr 2000 ChD Rimmer J	Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
	A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway. Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.
	Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

Secured Residential Funding plc -v- Douglas Goldberg Hendeles & Co (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 144
19 Apr 2000 CA	Agency, Land, Legal Professions
	Two linked companies were in business from the same premises lending money on mortgage. A loan from one company was made but supported only by documentation in the name of the other. The error was noticed, but new documents not prepared until after completion. In possession proceedings, the lender had to show that the money had been advanced by its associate as its agent. The operative date was the date on which the mortgage advance was made, not on completion.
	[ Bailii ]

Mortgage Corporation -v- Lambert & Co (A Firm) and Another [2000] PNLR 820
24 Apr 2000 CA	Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	If it was alleged that a lender could should have been aware of an overvaluation of a property so as to start the limitation clock, the owner must satisfy the court that it was reasonable at the time alleged for the lender have become obliged to obtain a retrospective valuation. That burden was not carried in this case.
	Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)

Mobil Oil Co Ltd -v- Birmingham City Council
5 May 2000 ChD	Land
	An area of land was to be used as a petrol filling station. Part was later to become part of a widened roadway, and that part was let and the remainder sold as freehold. The freehold land had no access to the highway save over the leasehold land. The land sale included an agreement later to grant necessary rights on development. The development was abandoned. On a renewal of the lease, the tenant claimed that the value was affected by the easement. It was held that no sufficient certainty existed to create an easement.

Caradon District Council -v- Paton; Same -v- Bussell [2000] 3 EGLR 57
10 May 2000 CA Latham LJ, Clarke LJ	Land
	The council had applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants from letting their properties on short term lets for holidaymakers. The houses had been sold by the council under the right to buy schemes, and they remained subject to covenants restraining the use of the property other than as a private dwelling house and not for business use. It now appealed against the refusal of such injunctions. Held: The appeal succeeded. The use for lettings of one or two weeks at a time were not lettings as a private dwelling house, since they lacked the necessary permanence. The tenants could not be said to be using the properties as a home even for the short period, and the lettings were in breach. The use as a private dwellinghouse required some occupation as a home. That element implied a permanence and intention to reside in the property which was missing from such lets. Lord Justice Latham emphasised that covenants must be construed in their context. The context here was the desire to preserve the availability of housing stock built with public funds. Given this finding it was unnecessary to decide whether the use was in breach of the covenant against use for business
	Housing Act 1980

Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions -v- Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd; Bennett Construction (UK) Ltd -v- Baylis (Gloucester) Ltd
16 May 2000 ChD	Land, Registered Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	Land once conveyed for the purposes of becoming a highway, became dedicated for that purpose even though no steps were ever taken for its use for that purpose. The registration of a company as proprietor by the Land Registry did not displace the dedication since the interest was an over-riding one under the Act.
	Land Registration Act 1925 - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Enterprise Inns Plc -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
18 May 2000 QBD	Land
	A compulsory purchase order was made. The land owner applied for confirmation by the inspector. They issued an application to challenge the inspector's recommendation, but did so before it was actually published. The statute required the challenge to be made within six weeks of the publication of the recommendation. The authority said the six weeks was the only window of time in which an application could be submitted. It was held that an application outside that six weeks window gave no jurisdiction to be heard.
	Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23

Pierce and Another -v- Coal Authority [2000] EWLands LCA_2_1998
22 May 2000 LT	Land
	[ Bailii ]

Telegraph Service Stations Ltd -v- Trafford Borough Council and Another [2000] EWLands ACQ_163_1996
24 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Telegraph Service Stations Ltd -v- Trafford Borough Council and Another [2000] EWLands ACQ_162_1996
24 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Burton Group Plc -v- Rapps (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_272_1996
24 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Burton Group Plc -v- Rapps (Valuation Officer) [2000] EWLands RA_273_1996
24 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Batchelor -v- Marlow and Another (2001) 82 P & CR 36
25 May 2000 ChD	Land, Road Traffic, Limitation	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.

Collins, Etridge; Gonzalez -v- Union Bank of Switzerland Barclays Bank Plc Richard Caplan and Co (a Firm) St Georges Street Trustees Limited St James's Trustees Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 176
25 May 2000 CA Otton LJ, Buxton LJ	Land, Equity, Banking, Legal Professions
	The claimants sought permission to appeal after their claim had been struck out. The claim had alleged fraud against the first defendant, and the court had found that claim to have no real prospect of success. They said that the bank had provided a financial reference upon which they relied in turning down one offer for a golf course development in Spain in favour of an offer apparently supported by the reference. The judge had held that they had not relied on the reference. Held: The documentation made the position clear, and no businessman of any experience would have relied on the purported reference, and the reference was also subject to an effective disclaimer. The evidence now sought to be admitted could with reasonable diligence have been obtained for the trial. No important point of law or practice arose, and leave was refused.
	Link[s] omitted

Mainstream Ventures Ltd -v- Woolway (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_56_1999
26 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Longmint Ltd, Re [2000] EWLands LRX_52_1999
26 May 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Allied Irish Bank Group (Uk) Plc -v- Henelly Properties Ltd and Others
7 Jun 2000 ChD	Land, Financial Services
	The fact that a mortgage advance was to be paid by stages as a building progressed, did not mean that the mortgage securing the advance was delivered in escrow until the building work was complete. If the mortgagee defaulted in his payments the lender was entitled to seek possession of the land at that time.

Racheter -v- Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_138_1999
7 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Selby District Council -v- Samuel Smith Old Brewery Ltd (2000) 80 P & CR 466; [2000] EWCA Civ 182
15 Jun 2000 CA	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	The council conveyed land to the brewery, with an option to re-purchase it. On exercising the option, the brewery asserted rights over the land, by way of easement acquired during its ownership. These were rejected by the court. The intention of the option, was that the land should be reconveyed in the same condition. The Law Society contract condition was not intended to disregard any connection between the fictional and actual conveyance, which in any event were to be deemed to have occurred on the same day. The court had regard to the circumstances existing at the time of the bargain to infer the common intention that the parties were to be restored to their previous positions, and accordingly held that the rights reserved were only the established easements at the date of the grant.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Planning Inspectorate Cardiff ex parte Elwyn Ivor Howell [2000] EWHC Admin 355
15 Jun 2000 Admn	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Old England Properties Ltd -v- Telford & Wrekin Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_111_1999
15 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

London Borough of Hillingdon -v- ARC Limited (No 2) [2000] 3 EGLR 97; [2000] EWCA Civ 191
16 Jun 2000 CA Arden, Waller, Swinton Thomas	Land, Limitation, Estoppel	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time. Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel.
	Limitation Act 1980 9 - Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11
	Link[s] omitted

Peacock, Re [2000] EWLands LP_37_99
16 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Moase and Lomas -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and South West Water Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 193
16 Jun 2000 CA	Land, Utilities	Casemap 1 Cites
	Objection to compulsory purchase order.
	Link[s] omitted

Morrells of Oxford Ltd -v- Oxford United Football Club and Others
22 Jun 2000 ChD	Land	1 Cites 1 Citers
	Land was sold by the authority for a public house, and the authority covenanted not to permit sales of alcohol within a half mile. They later sold land for a football stadium within that area and from where alcohol would be sold. The covenant was held to be limited to the acts of the council, and did not, because of the omission of explicit words from this clause as compared to others in the document, bind successors in title.
	Law of Property Act 1925 79

Carl and Another -v- Grosvenor Estate Belgravia [2000] EWLands LRA_33_1999
22 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Whitbread plc -v- UCB Corporate Services Ltd
22 Jun 2000 CA	Land, Financial Services
	A deed altering the priorities of two mortgages limited the amount of the prior loan to a capital sum together with interest. The party with priority claimed to be entitled to compound interest, and the second resisted it. The court said that the word 'interest' must refer to that payable under the loan agreement secured by the deeds, and not to interest generally, and therefore the compounded interest was given priority.

Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others -v- Harrow London Borough Council [2000] UKHL 70; [2000] 3 All ER 289; [2000] EG 80; [2000] NPC 71; [2000] 2 EGLR 5; [2000] BLGR 547; (2001) 81 P & CR 9; [2001] 2 AC 1; [2000] 3 WLR 165; [2000] RVR 235
22 Jun 2000 HL Lord Steyn Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the section, it did not cease to be recoverable because the interruption was only temporary. Lord Hoffmann said: "the term 'injuriously affected', connotes 'injuria' that is to say, damage which would have been wrongful but for the protection afforded by statutory powers … In practice this means that a claimant has to show that but for the statute he would have had an action for damages for public or private nuisance." Lord Hoffmann summarised the claim for the effects of obstruction of access due to closing of local roads: "The owners of the hotel ('the claimants') say that during the period of the works they were subjected to various forms of interference with their use and enjoyment of the hotel. Hoardings were erected which obscured the hotel or prevented or restricted access by themselves and their customers. For long periods the roads and pavements leading to the hotel were totally or partially obstructed or closed. The works caused considerable noise, dust and vibration. All this was very detrimental to business." Lord Hoffmann: "Section 68 gave compensation for injurious affection caused by the "execution" of the works. In Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand LR 4 HL 171 the House of Lords (with Lord Cairns dissenting) decided that this meant that there could be compensation only for the effects of the construction of the railway and not for its operation. If an embankment unreasonably obstructed the claimant's light or access, he could claim compensation. But he could not claim for what would otherwise have been a nuisance caused by the noise, vibrations or smell of passing trains."
	Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 10
	Link[s] omitted

Prosser and Another -v- Inland Revenue [2000] EWLands DET_1_2000
26 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Godfrey -v- Simm (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_15_1999
27 Jun 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions, Ex Parte Wheeler
29 Jun 2000 QBD	Land, Administrative
	The minister decided that upon land which had been compulsorily purchased, but which was no longer needed being sold, it should not first be offered back to the original owners. The owner complained that the decision was in breach of the rules, which required such an offer unless it was a very exceptional case with strong and urgent reasons of public interest. They argued that this required a risk to life or limb. This was too close a definition. For such a decision to be intrinsically perverse, it had to defy comprehension. In this case, the secretary had asked himself the right questions, and the challenge failed.
	Crichel Down Rules 1992

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Defence, Ex Parte Wilkins
13 Jul 2000 QBD	Land
	Land had been acquired compulsorily, but was now no longer required. The Minister asserted that the character of the land had changed and that there was no need first to re-offer it to the previous owner. The secretary contended that all the parcels of land should be considered together, and the former owners sought consideration of each parcel separately. The court said that the question related to the plot of land now to be sold, rather than the separate plots which had been purchased.
	Crichel Down Rules 1992

AIB Group (Uk) Ltd (Formerly Allied Irish Banks Plc and AIB Finance Ltd) -v- Martin and Another
13 Jul 2000 CA	Land
	Partners borrowed substantial sums from the claimant bank. A charge on the property made each jointly and severally liable for the debts. After default, the bank sought repayment from one partner of sums lent outside the partnership to the other. The appellant asserted that this made him guarantor of the partner, and that any ambiguity should be construed in the surety's favour. The court held that the words were clear and imported the necessary meaning throughout the charge, and the meaning was not outside the parties intentions.

Blackwell -v- Evans (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_11_2000
14 Jul 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Pendle Borough Council, Re [2000] EWLands ACQ_27_1999
20 Jul 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Hyde Housing Association Ltd -v- Williams [2000] EWLands LRX_53_1999
20 Jul 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Diggens and Others, Re (No 2) [2000] EWLands LP_27_1999; [2001] EGLR 1
21 Jul 2000 LT Mr Clarke FRICS	Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was a proposal to erect five houses in the gardens of houses subject to restrictive covenants. Held: The existing restrictions did secure practical benefits. The Tribunal referred to a number of factors, one of which was "the prevention of nuisance and annoyance during building works"
	Link[s] omitted

Morrells of Oxford Ltd -v- Oxford United Football Club Ltd and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 226
21 Jul 2000 CA	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	A covenant on the sale of land for a public house provided that the vendor should not permit the building of licensed premises within half a mile. The covenant operated personally only. The covenants which might be implied by the section to bind successors in title also, could not be implied where the commercial context suggested that such an implication would be inconsistent with the purport of the instrument. The words which might be implied under the section, would not be implied against the commercial sense of the transaction, nor inconsistently with the purport of the covenant.
	Law of Property Act 1925 79
	Link[s] omitted

B & Q Plc -v- Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd [2001] 1 EGLR 93; (2001) 81 P & CR 20; [2000] EG 10
26 Jul 2000 ChD Mr Justice Blackburne (Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster)	Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The dominant owner wished to deal with delivery vehicles in a manner where they were left parked awaiting emptying. The servient owner (a lessee) wanted to construct over a large part of the land. The servient owner objected. Held: Whether an easement was being subjected to an actionable interference, was answered by asking whether insistence upon the use of the entire easement contracted for was reasonable. The grantee should not be deprived of the full extent of what might appear to be an ample right only because he reasonably might require a lesser extent of right.
	Link[s] omitted

Bowers -v- Kennedy
27 Jul 2000 IHCS	Land, Limitation, Scotland
	A landowner who had no alternative means of access to his land could not lose a right of way to it by a failure to use it. It was not a right of servitude, but rather an incident of the rights inherent as owner. The inapplicability of periods and rules of limitation in such cases was well established.

Marlene Peggy Masters -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions [2000] EWCA Civ 249; [2000] 4 PLR 134
31 Jul 2000 CA Roch LJ	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where a public byway was defined as such under the Act, it was intended that the highway should be shown as such on the definitive map. The fact, if it was such, that a byway had fallen into disuse was not an indication that it should be omitted from the map. The purpose of the Act was precisely to protect little used byways, by recording them, and not by deleting them. Roch LJ: "[The] provisions [of Paragraph 10] were not re-enacted in the 1981 Act because, as Mr Laurence conceded, it was thought by Parliament that those provisions conflicted with the common law rule that, once the public have a right of way of a certain type over land, then in order to extinguish or even vary such a right, intervention by statute, either directly or indirectly, should be necessary."
	Wildlife and Countryside Act 1961 66(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Lands Tribunal, Ex Parte Jafton Properties Ltd [2000] EWHC Admin 384
31 Jul 2000 COL Langley J	Costs, Administrative, Land
	After a tribunal application, the applicant submitted his costs for taxation. After the hearing there was further correspondence about the decision, resulting in the applicant formally objecting to the taxation. He suggested that the correspondence after the award meant that taxation had not been concluded. It was held that he was out of time. The taxation award had all the elements necessary to make it final, and the President's refusal of extension of time was not irrational or unreasonable. The reasons were succinct, but correct.
	Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 (1996 No 1022) 52
	Link[s] omitted

Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd -v- Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_81_2000
3 Aug 2000 LT	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	[ Bailii ]

D'Abo -v- Paget and Others
10 Aug 2000 ChD	Land
	Where a clause in a conveyance was not one found in precedent books of the period, it was not useful to refer to precedents from the time to show the then conveyancing practice. Nor in this case was any support to be obtained from cases involving strict settlements using different wording.

Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited for Judicial Review of A Decision Dated 26 August 1999 of Glasgow City Council [2000] ScotCS 228
15 Aug 2000 OHCS Lord Nimmo Smith	Scotland, Planning, Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 191
	Link[s] omitted

Manchester and District Housing Association -v- Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another
17 Aug 2000 ChD	Construction, Land
	The defendant builder contracted to build on and then convey the land and building to the claimant. The builder charged the land, but failed to complete the building, and went into liquidation. The claimant sought specific performance with a reduction of the purchase price reflecting the breach. The builder asserted that the obligation to sell only arose on the completion of the building. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the land, since the builder could not rely upon his own fault. Any conditionality was gone once the building work began.

Michael James Meston Reid, Permanent Trustee Upon the Sequestrated Estates of Carlene Rose Burnett -v- Harvey Leighton Grainger and Moira Elizabeth Grainger [2000] ScotSC 23
28 Aug 2000 ScSf Sheriff Principal D.J. Risk, Q.C.	Scotland, Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Bath and Wells Diocesan Board of Finance and Another -v- Jenkinson and Others
6 Sep 2000 ChD	Land, Charity, Trusts
	Where there was a gift of land on charitable trusts, but where the gift was first expressed to be unlimited in time, but later in the deed provided powers for revocation, and conditions for defeasance, it must remain a matter of construction of the particular deed to decide whether the gift was in perpetuity. In the current cases the reversionary provisions were void for remoteness, and the trustees had acquire a possessory title for charity on the trusts of the original deeds.

Citypark Properties Ltd -v- Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_76_2000
6 Sep 2000 LT	Land
	LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - Highways Act 1980 s 73 - claim for compensation for injurious affection as result of improvement line - whether entitlement to compensation - held no improvement line prescribed by compensating authority - no entitlement to compensation
	Highways Act 1980 73
	Link[s] omitted

Lohia and Another -v- Lohia
7 Sep 2000 ChD	Land, Trusts
	Land was transferred from son to his father with no consideration expressed. The father died and the son claimed that the absence of consideration meant that the house was to be held upon trust for the donor and donee as beneficial joint tenants in equal shares, and that accordingly upon the death of the father he was entitled to his share. It was held that the section was clear and that a conveyance for nil value meant what it said. A person seeking to establish a resulting trust had to prove it. The voluntary conveyance was effective in the terms in which it was expressed.
	Law of Property Act 1925 60 (3)

Pavilion Court Ltd -v- Allen and Another [2000] EWLands LRX_42_1999
13 Sep 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Lindsay -v- Highways Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_110_1998
13 Sep 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

(Un-named) [2000] EWLands ACQ_23_1999
25 Sep 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Howard De Walden Estates Ltd -v- Dioszeghy [2000] EWLands LRA_9_2000
5 Oct 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Davies and Others, Re [2000] EWLands LP_32_1999
5 Oct 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd -v- Construction Industry Training Board
10 Oct 2000 QBD	Land, Construction, Employment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry's training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might only be attached to buildings by screws, the fittings were intended to alter the character of a building, and counted as such.
	Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999 159

Marriott -v Secretary of State for the Environment [2000] EWHC 652 (Admin); [2001] JPL 559
10 Oct 2000 Admn	Land
	Application to quash public footpath re-classification.
	Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
	Link[s] omitted

Alliance and Leicester Plc -v- Slayford and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 257
12 Oct 2000 CA	Undue Influence, Banking, Land, Financial Services
	Property was transferred into a divorcing husband's name, and his new partner signed a form disclaiming any rights as against the lender. After possession proceedings, she later asserted that her consent had been obtained by the undue influence of her partner and that her equitable interest was an overriding one. The applicant applied to amend the pleadings to add to the claim for possession a claim against the original chargor for the debt secured. Held: This was not an abuse of process even though the result might be that the partner's insolvency came to defeat the new partner's equitable interest. It was not an abuse of process, where a lender seeking to take possession of a mortgaged property was faced with an assertion of an interest by a resident spouse, for that lender to seek as an alternative, the bankruptcy of the borrower under the loan agreement itself. Such an action was clearly available to them. An occupier in such circumstances could now taking advantage of the more detailed exposition of rights contained in the Act which would be an appropriate way of establishing the protection to be given.
	Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
	[ Bailii ]

Rahman -v- Sterling Credit Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 222; [2001] 1 WLR 496
17 Oct 2000 CA Simon Brown and Mummery LJJ	Land, Limitation, Consumer	Casemap 1 Citers
	A lender sought repossession of a property securing a loan from 1998. The borrower sought to assert that the loan was an extortionate credit bargain under the Act. The lender asserted that that claim was out of time. Held: A claim under a statute was an action upon a specialty, and that accordingly the limitation period applicable was twelve years, and the order was to stand.
	Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Limitation Act 1980
	Link[s] omitted

Regina (Structadene Limited) -v- Hackney London Borough Council [2000] EWHC Admin 405
19 Oct 2000 Admn	Land, Local Government
	The disposal of land in a conveyance, for the purposes of the Act, takes place on the transfer and not on exchange of contracts. The authority set out to sell land by auction but before the auction decided to accept an offer from the tenants. Before exchange the applicants offered a larger sum, but the council exchanged on the lower offer. They were enjoined from completing the sale pending a review of their decision not to accept the higher offer. Although the idea of disposal could certainly include the creation of equitable rights upon exchange, when asking which of the two events was the disposal, the conveyance date was the one. Accordingly it was not too late for the court to intervene and set aside the transaction so far.
	Local Government Act 1972 123 128
	Link[s] omitted

Lepley -v- Essex County Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_92_2000
24 Oct 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Powell -v- Cheltenham Borough Council [2000] EWLands LCA_146_2000
25 Oct 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Yambou Development Company Limited -v- Kauser (as executive of the will of Helen Hadley, deceased) (Appeal No 3 of 1999) [2000] UKPC 40
25 Oct 2000 PC	Land, Contract, Commonwealth
	PC (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) specific performance of a contract for the sale of land
	Link[s] omitted

J A Pye (Oxford) Limited -v- South Gloucestershire District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 268
26 Oct 2000 CA Otton, Ward LJJ, Evans-Lombe J	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	The company appealed an award by way of valuation for land which was to valued as if purchased compulsorily. It was argued that they were raising points which should have been litigated before the Lands Tribunal. Held: The appeal to the court was only on a point of law, and the company should have brought the full elements of its its valuation claim at the tribunal. The tribunal had not erred in law, and the appeal failed.
	Land Consolidation Act 1961
	[ Bailii ]

Wandsworth London Borough Council -v- Railtrack plc
2 Nov 2000 QBD	Nuisance, Land, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of feral pigeons. Although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of steps taken, by surfacing the bridge to deal with the nuisance. The number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable.

Waters and others -v- Welsh Development Agency [2000] EWLands ACQ_93_1999; [2001] EWLands RA_16_1999
3 Nov 2000 LT	Land, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites
	LT COMPENSATION - Compulsory purchase of land for purpose of nature reserve to compensate for loss of SSSI caused by Cardiff Bay Barrage – preliminary issues - Land Compensation Act 1961 s 5 rule (3) - Pointe Gourde rule - held land had no special suitability or adaptability for purpose - rule (3) did not apply - public purpose of acquisition must be left out of account - scheme underlying acquisition was Cardiff Bay Barrage.
	Land Compensation Act 1961 5(3)
	Link[s] omitted

Ghulam -v- Bristol City Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_91_2000
3 Nov 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Markfield Investments Ltd -v- Evans [2000] EWCA Civ 281; [2001] 1 WLR 1321
9 Nov 2000 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham	Land, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant's predecessor in title. Held: With regard to any particular action the relevant time, and the only relevant time, for consideration of adverse possession is that which has expired before such action is brought. A letter and separate action could not found a claim. Appeal dismissed.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- City of Sunderland, ex parte Beresford [2000] EWHC Admin 418; [2001] 1 WLR 1327
14 Nov 2000 Admn Janet Smith J	Land, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A recreational area was claimed to be a common. The council considered that there was evidence, which it accepted, of an implied licence, thus enabling the inference to be drawn that the use by local inhabitants for statutory purposes had not been as of right. Held: Time could not begin to run in the acquisition of rights of common where the exercise of the rights could have been founded on an implied licence. An implied licence has the same legal effect as an express licence. In the absence of an express permission, the court must ask whether a reasonable person with the knowledge available would have appreciated that the use was with the landowner's acquiescence. "the fact that the land is in public ownership is plainly a relevant matter when one is considering what conclusion a reasonable person would draw from the circumstances of user. It is well known that local authorities do, as part of their normal functions, provide facilities for the use of the public and maintain them also at public expense. It is not part of the normal function of a private landowner to provide facilities for the public on the land. Public ownership of the land is plainly a relevant consideration." The claim to register must fail.
	Commons Registration Act 1965 22
	Link[s] omitted

In Re St Gregory, Offchurch: Coventry
16 Nov 2000 ConC	Land, Ecclesiastical
	Where a church was listed as having special architectural or historical interest, there was a presumption against granting a faculty for any change which would adversely affect its character. Here, however, a faculty should be granted for a new Millennium window, since this was not a change adverse to its character, it did not seek to replace a window of a specifically Christian nature, the majority of parishioners appeared to be in favour of the change, and the presumption against change to a listed building had also been rebutted.

Hale -v- Norfolk County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 290; [2001] Ch 717
17 Nov 2000 CA	Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	A public right away could not be presumed to have been granted by the owner of land adjoining a public highway merely from the erection of fences or hedges on the side of a highway. There is no simple rule that the land was deemed to have been dedicated to public use "from hedge-to-hedge". Some greater act was needed to provide evidence that there had been any gift to the public. The 1936 Act was concerned with public health, and could not be used to create rights of way. Where a highway is constructed under section 24(2) of the 1980 Act there is no formal requirement of dedication as a highway.
	Public Health Act 1936 - Highways Act 1980 24(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Diggens and Others, Re [2000] EWLands LP_25_2000
20 Nov 2000 LT	Land
	[ Bailii ]

David Pollard and Another -v- Christopher Ashurst [2000] EWCA Civ 291
21 Nov 2000 CA	Insolvency, Land, International
	An English court did have power to order the sale of property in Portugal owned by the bankrupt and his wife in their joint names. The estate of the bankrupt vested in the trustee automatically and withoutmore on the bankruptcy. This could not change land registers in Portugal. For such registers the country involved had exclusive jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the instant case involved no investigation of facts or law in Portugal, and it was appropriate to order that the bankrupt execute documents to transfer the property and hold it in trust for the trustee in bankruptcy until transferred.
	Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
	Link[s] omitted

Margaret Ribee -v- Michael Norrie [2000] EWCA Civ 275; [2001] L & TR 23
22 Nov 2000 CA	Torts - Other, Land, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	An owner of a property let to tenants was liable to a neighbour injured after a fire in the property, where the fire arose in circumstances which the owner had power, through the making of rules to prevent. The damage arose from a tenant smoking in a communal area. The test was whether the owner had the right to debar such behaviour. Since he did, he must be treated as the occupier of the land for this purpose and was therefore liable to the neighbour.
	Link[s] omitted

Habermann -v- Koehler and Another (No 2)
22 Nov 2000 CA	Land, Registered Land
	A house owner allowed occupiers in and gave a informal option for them to buy it. He later charged it and sold the property to the chargee in satisfaction of the debt. Before buying it the mortgagee enquired of the occupiers as to whether they intended to purchase the property, and their reply did not mention the option. The court held that the enquiry was sufficient enquiry and that though the option was capable of being an overriding interest, the reply was in terms which did not protect that option. The land was taken not subject to the option. The relevant time was on the purchase, not the taking of the mortgage.
	Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g)

First National Bank Plc -v- Walker and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 3015; [2001] 1 FCR 21; [2001] 1 FLR 505; [2001] Fam Law 182
23 Nov 2000 CA	Undue Influence, Family, Banking, Land, Banking	1 Citers
	A claim that a bank's charge should be set aside as having been obtained by the undue influence of a co-mortgagee was parasitic upon a claim as between the co-mortgagors in family proceedings. The wife sought as against the bank to challenge the validity of the charge, but asserted the existence of the charge in the course of proceedings which continued in parallel to the possession proceedings. She could not blow hot and cold. The claim against the husband and subsequent transfer had included an explicit acknowledgement by her of the charge, and that decided the issue between her and the bank.
	[ Bailii ]

Fraser and Another -v- Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham	Education, Land, Limitation, Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
	School Sites Act 1841
	Link[s] omitted

Fraser and Another -v- Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham	Education, Land, Limitation, Land	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
	School Sites Act 1841
	Link[s] omitted

St John's Hospital Trustees -v- Keevil and Another [2000] EWLands CON_145_2000
27 Nov 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Hyde -v- Mallow Properties Ltd [2000] EWLands LRA_22_2000
29 Nov 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Khan -v- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2000] EWLands ACQ_132_2000
30 Nov 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Ellis and Another -v- Logothetis [2000] EWLands LRA_3_2000
5 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Hanina -v- Morland
7 Dec 2000 CA	Land, Landlord and Tenant
	The respondent was tenant of premises with exclusive access to an area of the roof which had been used by her for leisure purposes. The freeholder objected, and she claimed that the use was in the nature of an easement which had passed to her under the section when she took a transfer of the lease. The right she claimed was an exclusive and unrestricted one. The section could not include such a right in the grant of the lease. However since she had the only access, nominal damages were substituted.
	Law of Property Act 1925 62

Galgate Cricket Club -v- Doyle (Vo) [2000] EWLands RA_27_2000
12 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Walker & Partners Ltd -v- Coal Authority [2000] EWLands LCA_48_1997
12 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc [2000] EWHC Admin 432
13 Dec 2000 Admn	Human Rights, Transport, Land	Casemap 1 Citers
	A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.
	Human Rights Act 1998 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981
	Link[s] omitted

Geoffrey Cobham -v- Joseph Frett [2000] UKPC 49; [2001] 1 WLR 1775
18 Dec 2000 PC Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Ivor Richardson The Rt. Hon. Edward Zacca	Commonwealth, Land, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	(British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or intermittent occupation. The parties had had resolved a dispute as to the ownership of land, but the winner moved to England, and the neighbour began acts to retake the land. The action to retake the land was heard, but judgement was not given until over a year after the hearing. Held: There was a suggestion that the judge had misremembered some of the evidence, but his notes were detailed, and there was no evidence that the delay had actually effected the judgement. Such would have to be shown to justify setting aside a judgement on this ground. Similarly the judge's analysis of the law was correct. "As to demeanour, two things can be said. First, in their Lordships' collective experience, a judge re-reading his notes of evidence after the elapse of a considerable period of time can expect, if the notes are of the requisite quality, his impressions of the witnesses to be revived by the re-reading. Second, every experienced judge, and Georges J was certainly that, is likely to make notes as a trial progresses recording the impressions being made on him by the witnesses. Notes of this character would not, without the judge's permission or special request being made to him, form part of the record on an appeal. They might be couched in language quite unsuitable for public record."
	Link[s] omitted

Ronald & John Popely and Another -v- D G Scott (Kent County Council) [2000] EWHC Admin 441
21 Dec 2000 Admn Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty	Magistrates, Consumer, Land	Casemap
	This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel. Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.
	Timeshare Act 1992 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
	Link[s] omitted

Shulem B Association Ltd, Re [2000] EWLands LRA_47_2000; [2001] 1 EGLR 105
21 Dec 2000 LT	Land	Casemap
	Hope value was held to justify an increase in the investment value of the freehold by around 15% of the marriage value on an enfranchisement valuation.
	Link[s] omitted

Stayley Developments Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport & the Regions [2000] EWLands ACQ_144_1998
21 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mohammed Aslam -v- South Bedfordshire District Council [2000] EWCA Civ 355
21 Dec 2000 CA	Land, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant appealed an award of the Lands Tribunal of compensation for an order discontinuing his use as a slaughterhouse of premises of which he held a long lease. The tribunal had applied a discount for wastage on sheep carcasses of 25%, but had had no evidence to support their conclusion, and the figure proposed had allowed for that factor. A reduced allowance for losses from sale of other parts of sheep could not be supported by the evidence, and was increased, and the tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the discontinuance order.
	Town and Country Planning Act 1990 102 - Planning and Compensation Act 1991
	[ Bailii ]

Christopher Anthony Rodwell -v- Abbey National plc -v- London Borough of Barking -v- Dagenham ACQ/139/00; ACQ/139/00
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mohammed Zulfqar Narwaz -v- Slough Borough Council ACQ/170/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

George Evis & Godfrey Richard Smith -v- Commission for New Towns ACQ/125-7/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land, Damages, Landlord and Tenant
	LT COMPENSATION - preliminary issue - disturbance payment – Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 – business premises acquired by authority with compulsory purchase powers – land later developed by company with lease from authority – entitlement to compensation under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s 37 – whether such entitlement precludes compensation under 1973 Act s 37(1)(a) – whether fact that development not carried out by authority precludes compensation under s 37(1)(c) – held compensation under s 37(1)(a) not precluded but no entitlement under s 37(1)(c)
	Land Compensation Act 1973 37
	Link[s] omitted

Adnan Azfar LP/10/2000; LP/10/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

R I Diggens, M H King, R H Cox, G A Cox LP/25/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Roy S Farrow LP/18/2000; LP/18/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Barbara Mary Pennington LP/22/2000; LP/22/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

J P Powell and J N Powell -v- Cheltenham Borough Council LCA/146/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mills -v- Allen Ltd -v- Commission for New Towns (trading as English Partnerships) LCA/144/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	COMPENSATION – preliminary issue – disturbance payment – Land Compensation Act 1973 s 37 – advertisement site – claimant's right to occupy terminating on disposal of land – land acquired by urban development corporation – hoardings removed by corporation – whether claimant displaced in consequence of acquisition – whether corporation an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers – held claimant entitled to compensation
	Land Compensation Act 1973 37
	Link[s] omitted

Kettering Borough Council -v- Anglian Water Services Plc LCA/121/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Pritam Singh Natal -v- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council ACQ/240/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Trustees of St John's Hospital -v- F W G Keevil & R W Keevil CON/145/2000; CON/145/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Rehman & Others -v- City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council ACQ/162-5/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Mohammed Abdul Khalique -v- National Westminster Bank Plc -v- City of Bradford Metroplolitan District Council ACQ/161/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Margarita Argyropoulou -v- Salford City Council ACQ/189/2000; ACQ/189/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Ryde International plc and London Regional Transport ACQ/147/2000; ACQ/147/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Sharif Khan -v- City of Bradford ACQ/132-2000; ACQ/132-2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Purfleet Farms Limited -v- Secretary of State ACQ/108/2000; ACQ/108/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	[ LT ]

Janet Lepley -v- Essex County Council ACQ/92/2000; ACQ/92/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Gulam -v- Bristol City Council ACQ/91/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Llanelec Precision Engineering Co Ltd -v- Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council ACQ/81/2000; ACQ/81/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

Citypark Properties Ltd -v- Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ACQ/76/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted

R Band J A Prosser (executors for Mrs E E Jempson (dec)) -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue DET/1/2000
31 Dec 2000 LT	Land
	Link[s] omitted