Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council & Ors

Paddico (267) Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Council & Ors

The registration of Clayton Fields as a town or village green in 1997 was invalid because the evidence did not show predominant use by inhabitants of a single legally recognised locality as required by section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. The areas relied on (Edgerton and Birkby) were not single localities, and the users were split between them. No alternative basis for registration existed on the evidence available at the time. It is just to rectify the register because, had the original application been refused, the landowner would likely have taken steps to prevent qualifying user, and no legitimate registration could have been obtained thereafter.

Parties
Claimant: Paddico (267) Limited; First Defendant: Kirklees Metropolitan Council; Second Defendant (for and on Behalf of Clayton Fields Action Group): William John Magee; Third Defendant (for and on Behalf of Clayton Fields Action Group): Thomas Michael Courtney Hardy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (land/administrative) / Judgment After Trial (part 8 Claim for Rectification of Register)
Outcome
Claim allowed; register to be rectified.
Legal Topics
Commons Registration Act 1965, Town or Village Green Registration, Rectification of Register, Interpretation of 'locality' and 'neighbourhood', Section 14 Applications, Retrospective Application of Law
Land Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Commons Registration Act 1965 Town or Village Green Registration Rectification of Register Interpretation of 'locality' and 'neighbourhood' Section 14 Applications +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paddico (267) Limited

Claimant

Kirklees Metropolitan Council

First Defendant

William John Magee

Second Defendant (for and on Behalf of Clayton Fields Action Group)

Thomas Michael Courtney Hardy

Third Defendant (for and on Behalf of Clayton Fields Action Group)

Procedural Posture

Civil (land/administrative) / Judgment After Trial (part 8 Claim for Rectification of Register)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clayton Fields ought to have been registered as a town or village green under section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965
  2. 2 Whether the registration can be supported on any alternative basis
  3. 3 Whether it is just to rectify the register under section 14 of the 1965 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The registration of Clayton Fields as a town or village green in 1997 was invalid because the evidence did not show predominant use by inhabitants of a single legally recognised locality as required by section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. The areas relied on (Edgerton and Birkby) were not single localities, and the users were split between them. No alternative basis for registration existed on the evidence available at the time. It is just to rectify the register because, had the original application been refused, the landowner would likely have taken steps to prevent qualifying user, and no legitimate registration could have been obtained thereafter.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; register to be rectified.

Orders

  • The register of town and village greens maintained by Kirklees Metropolitan Council is to be rectified by the removal of the entry relating to Clayton Fields.