Please boost your Plan to download papers
Case Study example - Bluechester City Council v Doncaster Wagons Ltd
Pages 6 (1506 words)
The topic of the advice is the occupancy and position of the land. The 1925 land act states that the members of public can exercise their right of their use of metropolitan common land. The land or free state mentioned in the case is not metropolitan common land and the free exercise of the right of use shall be restricted…
Extract of sample
If any building or a fence is erected or any construction is done, it cannot be lawful without the consent of the minister. They will order inquiries as are directed by the commons act 1876. The county courts are entitled to convict the person or the organisation that constructed the fence or any erection has been done. The order mentioned above is subjected to appeal in the higher court according to section thirty of commons act, 1876. These are the conditions that apply to the land which is declared common before the possession of it was given to a person, lord, manor or to an organisation for any purpose of public or private interest. In such conditions the parking of vehicles, erection of cabin, construction of fence by Doncaster wagons can be considered illegal and can be complained to the country court or any relevant government agency. The problem lying here is that the Blue Chester city council did not take any legal action the 12 years of duration. Now the legal question arises that after this much term of negligence towards occupation does the Bluechester city council do have any legal right to take action on Doncaster Wagons ltd. (Swarb.co.uk, 2007)
There is every chance for the risk of Doncaster acquiring the possession rights as the title to the land is not registered. ...
Not exactly what