Wallace-Jambs v. Montgomerie & Co., Ltd [1903] UKHL 137 (18 December 1903)

Wallace-Jambs v. Montgomerie & Co., Ltd [1903] UKHL 137 (18 December 1903)

The complainer failed to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right public use of the land for forty years. The evidence showed only casual, intermittent, and minor uses, often interrupted by commercial letting and inconsistent with dedication to public use. The land was not shown to be part of any ancient common or commonty, and the burden of proof was not met. The House of Lords is not precluded from reversing concurrent findings of fact where those findings are clearly wrong on the evidence.

Citation
[1903] UKHL 137
Parties
Complainer/respondent: Wallace-Jambs; Respondents/reclaimers/appellants: Montgomerie & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 December 1903
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / House of Lords Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutors reversed; action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Burgh Property, Common Land, Immemorial Use, Public Rights, Dedication to Public Use, Interdict, Concurrent Findings of Fact
Property Law Local Government Law Burgh Property Common Land Immemorial Use Public Rights Dedication to Public Use Interdict +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wallace-Jambs

Complainer/respondent

Montgomerie & Company, Limited

Respondents/reclaimers/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / House of Lords Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land in question had been appropriated from time immemorial to the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants for recreation and drying/bleaching clothes
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence of public user for forty years existed to establish a right by immemorial user
  3. 3 Whether the House of Lords is bound by two concurring findings of fact in the courts below

Ratio Decidendi

The complainer failed to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right public use of the land for forty years. The evidence showed only casual, intermittent, and minor uses, often interrupted by commercial letting and inconsistent with dedication to public use. The land was not shown to be part of any ancient common or commonty, and the burden of proof was not met. The House of Lords is not precluded from reversing concurrent findings of fact where those findings are clearly wrong on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutors reversed; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Interlocutors appealed from reversed.
  • Action dismissed with costs in the House of Lords and in the courts below.