Image from Google Jackets

Ford-Camber Limited V (1) Deanminster Limited (2) Grove Properties (Cardiff) Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 458, 22 March 2007. The appellant (F) appealed against a decision refusing permission to amend a claim against the respondents (D and G). F had right of way across a service road, which was part of a development site. D owned part of the site, while G owned the road. G held that under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 it could obstruct F's route if it offered alternative access. The site owner (X), the intended purchaser (T) and the Land Authority for Wales (L) had agreed that L would use its statutory powers to resolve the matter. L suggested an alternative right of way, which F rejected, stating that L had not acquired the land for beneficial purpose other than to use its statutory powers. "Held": The judge was right not to allow F to amend its claim. Acquisition of land within the meaning of s.104(1)(a) of the Act did not mean beneficial acquisition: it was enough to obtain the legal title of the land (in the case of unregistered land) or for registered land, to become entitled to be registered as proprietor of the land. Appeal dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 138681-1001

[2007] EWCA Civ 458, 22 March 2007. The appellant (F) appealed against a decision refusing permission to amend a claim against the respondents (D and G). F had right of way across a service road, which was part of a development site. D owned part of the site, while G owned the road. G held that under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 it could obstruct F's route if it offered alternative access. The site owner (X), the intended purchaser (T) and the Land Authority for Wales (L) had agreed that L would use its statutory powers to resolve the matter. L suggested an alternative right of way, which F rejected, stating that L had not acquired the land for beneficial purpose other than to use its statutory powers. "Held": The judge was right not to allow F to amend its claim. Acquisition of land within the meaning of s.104(1)(a) of the Act did not mean beneficial acquisition: it was enough to obtain the legal title of the land (in the case of unregistered land) or for registered land, to become entitled to be registered as proprietor of the land. Appeal dismissed.