BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Land Registry Adjudicator >> Iqbal & Anor v Buckinghamshire County Council (Practice and Procedure : Scope of jurisdiction) [2017] UKFTT 679 (PC) (17 August 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2017/2016_0247.html Cite as: [2017] UKFTT 679 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
(1) Safdar Iqbal (2) Mumtaz Iqbal v Buckinghamshire County Council (Practice and Procedure : Scope of jurisdiction) [2017] UKFTT 679 (PC) (17 August 2017)
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] UKFTT 679 (PC) Application for first registration of a section of embankment to the rear of the Applicants' home based on adverse possession. Respondent, the local highway authority,o argued that the embankment formed part of a defined public footpath and was accordingly part of a highway. The parties accepted that if the disputed land was part of a highway the claim based on adverse possession should fail. The current definitive map of the defined public footpath did not specify the width of the pathway. The embankment did not form part of the footpath as currently used but the local authority contended that the disputed land was part of an ancient drovers' way. The local authority did not call any expert evidence and the very limited factual evidence was tendered. The evidence presented was not sufficient to support the local authority's contention and the Applicants' evidence established adverse possession of the embankment. The application succeeded. The Decision includes a discussion of the extent of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider matters not raised in objections made to the Land Registry prior to the reference. Contrary to the Applicants' submission, it was held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine on the evidence whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the disputed land even though the local authority had not challenged the claim to adverse possession until after the reference. The question of whether the Applicants had adversely possessed the land was part of the "matter" referred to the Tribunal, adopting the approach set out in paragraph 7.4 of A Practical Guide to Land Registration Proceedings.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2017] UKFTT 679 (PC)
