Image from Google Jackets

Owen v Blathwayt

Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; [2003] 1 P&CR 28, 444-466(23)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: [2002] EWHC 2231 (Ch), 1 November 2002. The claimant (O) brought an action against B and five others in order to determine the proper construction and effect of a grant of a non-exclusive right to graze sheep and how it related to later grants of the right to graze over the same land. In 1992 English Nature had reduced the number of sheep permitted to graze on the land and as O had more than the numbers allowed, he held that he should have sole use of the common. O claimed priority over the later grantees due the fact that the right to graze had been given on the purchase of the farm in 1954; the other three farms had been granted grazing rights in 1994, 1996 and 1998. It was held that O did not have priority because of the chronology of the changes in tenancies that provided the new grants to graze sheep on the common and that the number of sheep permitted by the limited grazing should be made in reference to the number of sheep each farm could maintain without including the commonland.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS66909 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 122998-1001

[2002] EWHC 2231 (Ch), 1 November 2002. The claimant (O) brought an action against B and five others in order to determine the proper construction and effect of a grant of a non-exclusive right to graze sheep and how it related to later grants of the right to graze over the same land. In 1992 English Nature had reduced the number of sheep permitted to graze on the land and as O had more than the numbers allowed, he held that he should have sole use of the common. O claimed priority over the later grantees due the fact that the right to graze had been given on the purchase of the farm in 1954; the other three farms had been granted grazing rights in 1994, 1996 and 1998. It was held that O did not have priority because of the chronology of the changes in tenancies that provided the new grants to graze sheep on the common and that the number of sheep permitted by the limited grazing should be made in reference to the number of sheep each farm could maintain without including the commonland.