Norbrook Laboratories Ltd & Ors v Carlisle City Council

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd & Ors v Carlisle City Council

The right of free access conferred by Article 5 of the 1915 Scheme was not a right of common and was not extinguished by non-registration; the land remained common land, and the Council did not err in concluding it was 'public open space' for the purposes of section 9 of the Forestry Act 1967. The Tree Preservation Order was lawfully made, and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Norbrook Laboratories Limited; Claimant: The Right Honourable The Lord Ballyedmond; Claimant: Lady Ballyedmond; Defendant: Carlisle City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Common Land Registration, Public Rights of Access, Forestry Act Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Property Law Tree Preservation Orders Common Land Registration Public Rights of Access Forestry Act Jurisdiction Procedural Fairness

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norbrook Laboratories Limited

Claimant

The Right Honourable The Lord Ballyedmond

Claimant

Lady Ballyedmond

Claimant

Carlisle City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council erred in concluding the land was 'public open space' for purposes of section 9 of the Forestry Act 1967
  2. 2 Whether the Council erred in finding the land was 'waste land of the manor' giving public rights of access
  3. 3 Whether the Development Control Committee failed to consider if it was expedient in the interests of amenity to confirm the Tree Preservation Order

Ratio Decidendi

The right of free access conferred by Article 5 of the 1915 Scheme was not a right of common and was not extinguished by non-registration; the land remained common land, and the Council did not err in concluding it was 'public open space' for the purposes of section 9 of the Forestry Act 1967. The Tree Preservation Order was lawfully made, and no procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed