Belper Solicitors

Mc Intosh Fleming provide cheap, fixed price legal services in the areas of divorce ,family law , conveyancing, compromise agreements and probate. You will find us both friendly and efficient. We have two decades of experience behind us in the legal profession and we understand what legal consumers want and how they wish to access it in the digital age.

The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant seeking possession of a property in order to enforce an unregistered charge for the recovery of money due under a loan agreement. The first hearing of the possession claim was adjourned to allow the defendant to file a defence and counterclaim. With the assistance of her business partner and close personal friend, M, the defendant instructed a solicitor and gave sufficiently clear instructions to enable the required documents to be filed. Directions were given and the trial was fixed. M died unexpectedly.

Although the local authority is under no obligation to lay out the land as a recreation ground, it has an express statutory power to provide a recreation ground in connection with housing; once it has done so, and the land has been laid out and maintained as a recreation ground under the successive Housing Acts, then that land is appropriated for the purpose of public recreation. Since the playing field had been appropriated by a local authority for the purpose of public recreation under an express statutory power to provide, and thereafter maintain, a recreation ground, the local inhabitants had, throughout the relevant 20-year period, indulged in lawful sports and pastimes on the field by right and not as of right. Accordingly, the requirements for registration as a green under section 15 of the 2006 Act were not met.

The claimants did not object to the defendant using the right of way in connection with the grazing or exercise of horses; such use had been made of the track in the past. They also permitted the defendant to graze horses on their land pursuant to a grazing licence, and leased some stables to him, and they were content for him to use the track for those purposes. However, when the defendant began to run a stud farm business on his land in 2010, the claimants contended that use of the track for such purposes was unlawful. They objected to the passage and repassage of horse lorries, diggers, dumper trucks, cars and 4×4 vehicles along the track and to any use of the track by vets, farriers, feed suppliers, commercial visitors, oil suppliers and manure contractors.

On 22 February 1995, the claimants acquired, at auction, a farmhouse property at a price of £150,000 from National Westminster Bank plc (Natwest). On the day of the auction, the claimants saw an official certificate of search of the local charges register that had been obtained by Natwest. The certificate did not contain any entry relating to an agricultural occupancy planning condition affecting an agricultural worker’s dwelling on the property. In fact, in February 1989, planning permission had been granted for the erection of the agricultural worker’s dwelling subject to an agricultural worker’s occupancy planning condition. This was required to be registered in the local land charges register maintained by the defendant council. It was only in November 1998, after they had expended some £226,450 on renovations, that the claimants became aware of the planning condition. That condition was valid, notwithstanding any failure by the council to register it as a local land charge.

The holding had been farmed by the appellant and his father through a partnership. In four of the seven years before the father’s death the appellant’s drawings from the partnership were attributable not to farming profits for those years, but to injections of capital from himself, his father, banks and family loans; in only three of the seven years before the father’s death did the appellant draw sums which exceeded 50% of the farming profits to which he was entitled. On the appellant’s application, the Agricultural Land Tribunal made a direction under section 39 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 entitling him to a tenancy of the holding on the ground that during the relevant period the appellant was engaged in agricultural work on the holding and his principal source of livelihood was his drawings from the farm business whether or not there were net profits to which he was entitled generated by that business to fund the drawings.

© 2013