Crown Estate Commissioners v Dorset CC
Crown Estate Commissioners v Dorset CC
- 1990
- All England Law Reports (1990) 1 All ER 19 .
ChD 6 October 1989. In 1968 certain grass verges within the area of Dorset CC (D) were provisionally registered as common land . D acting as highway authority objected to the registration on the grounds that the verges formed part of the highway. At the hearing of objections by the Commons Commissioner (CC) in September 1976, the Crown Estate Commissioners (CE) claimed that the verges were part of the manorial lands of a royal manor, not part of the highway. CC held that the verges were part of the highway. D then ceased to make payments to CE claiming that they did not need their permission to carry out their statutory duty as a highway authority. In 1988 CE brought proceedings against D for trespass . D claimed that CE were estopped by the original decision of CC. This issue was tried as preliminary case. CE claimed that CC was not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of estoppel, because the issue in action was different from that which CC originally ruled on. Appeal
ChD 6 October 1989. In 1968 certain grass verges within the area of Dorset CC (D) were provisionally registered as common land . D acting as highway authority objected to the registration on the grounds that the verges formed part of the highway. At the hearing of objections by the Commons Commissioner (CC) in September 1976, the Crown Estate Commissioners (CE) claimed that the verges were part of the manorial lands of a royal manor, not part of the highway. CC held that the verges were part of the highway. D then ceased to make payments to CE claiming that they did not need their permission to carry out their statutory duty as a highway authority. In 1988 CE brought proceedings against D for trespass . D claimed that CE were estopped by the original decision of CC. This issue was tried as preliminary case. CE claimed that CC was not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of estoppel, because the issue in action was different from that which CC originally ruled on. Appeal