Devere, R (on the application of) v Land Registry

Devere, R (on the application of) v Land Registry

The applications for permission to apply for judicial review are refused as an abuse of process and totally without merit. The registrar and adjudicator acted lawfully and within their powers in registering title and limiting the issues. The objections raised by Mr DeVere and others were groundless, previously determined, or irrelevant. There is no arguable basis for judicial review.

Parties
Claimant: David Frank DeVere; Defendant: Land Registry; Interested Party: Canal & River Trust; Interested Party: Nigel Moore; Interested Party: James Mason; Interested Party: Port of London Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused; applications totally without merit and an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Adverse Possession, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Mooring Rights
Land Law Administrative Law Land Registration Adverse Possession Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Mooring Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Frank DeVere

Claimant

Land Registry

Defendant

Canal & River Trust

Interested Party

Nigel Moore

Interested Party

James Mason

Interested Party

Port of London Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Registry lawfully registered title to canal and river land in favour of Canal & River Trust and Port of London Authority
  2. 2 Whether the objections by Mr DeVere and others to registration were properly rejected as groundless or outside the scope of the adjudication
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator and registrar acted lawfully in limiting the issues and directing registration

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for permission to apply for judicial review are refused as an abuse of process and totally without merit. The registrar and adjudicator acted lawfully and within their powers in registering title and limiting the issues. The objections raised by Mr DeVere and others were groundless, previously determined, or irrelevant. There is no arguable basis for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused; applications totally without merit and an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused in both claims.
  • Costs to be paid by Mr DeVere and Mr Mason to Canal & River Trust and Port of London Authority.