Hall v Moore & Ors

Hall v Moore & Ors

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds that it is arguable the trial judge misinterpreted the reservation clause in the lease and that there is a real question as to whether the 1984 waiver agreement was validly entered into with the authority of all commoners, thus potentially affecting whether any rights of common passed to Mr Hall.

Parties
Appellant: Colin Hall; Respondent: Shirley Moore; Respondent: Gerald Harris; Respondent: Cynthia Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted on limited grounds
Legal Topics
Rights of Common, Waiver of Rights, Lease Interpretation, Presumption of Regularity

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Hall

Appellant

Shirley Moore

Respondent

Gerald Harris

Respondent

Cynthia Harris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the rights of common attached to Moat House Farm passed to Mr Hall under his lease or were reserved to the trustees
  2. 2 Whether the 1984 waiver agreement by the Commons Committee was valid and binding on all commoners, thereby extinguishing the rights of common during its operation

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds that it is arguable the trial judge misinterpreted the reservation clause in the lease and that there is a real question as to whether the 1984 waiver agreement was validly entered into with the authority of all commoners, thus potentially affecting whether any rights of common passed to Mr Hall.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted on limited grounds

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to Mr Hall on two specified grounds relating to the interpretation of the reservation clause and the validity of the 1984 waiver agreement.
  • Permission to appeal on all other grounds refused.