Image from Google Jackets

Michael Housden and another v The conservators of Wimbledon and Putney commons [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWCA Civ 200, 18 March 2008. Considers whether the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 granted the conservators of those commons the right to grant an easement as a right of way over part of the commons. The appellants (H) argued that the Act gave the respondent conservators of the commons (C) the power to register an easement reflecting H's open use of part of the commons, by foot and vehicle for access to their property, for over 40 years. C appealed against the decision of the Land Registry adjudicator and the judge on appeal that the Act did not grant C this power and therefore the acquisition of prescriptive right of way was barred to H. "Held": The Act contained the need to conserve the commons for the purposes of an increasing local population without alienating parts of the commons from that population. The granting of an easement for access only did not run contrary to that purpose. It would not constitute unlawful disposal of part of the commons. The judge noted that if access rights were not granted this would run contrary to the rights of acquisition offered by the Prescription Act 1832 section 2. Appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 143459-1001

[2008] EWCA Civ 200, 18 March 2008. Considers whether the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 granted the conservators of those commons the right to grant an easement as a right of way over part of the commons. The appellants (H) argued that the Act gave the respondent conservators of the commons (C) the power to register an easement reflecting H's open use of part of the commons, by foot and vehicle for access to their property, for over 40 years. C appealed against the decision of the Land Registry adjudicator and the judge on appeal that the Act did not grant C this power and therefore the acquisition of prescriptive right of way was barred to H. "Held": The Act contained the need to conserve the commons for the purposes of an increasing local population without alienating parts of the commons from that population. The granting of an easement for access only did not run contrary to that purpose. It would not constitute unlawful disposal of part of the commons. The judge noted that if access rights were not granted this would run contrary to the rights of acquisition offered by the Prescription Act 1832 section 2. Appeal allowed.