Desmo Paul wrote

On 31 Dec, 20:13, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

There was a legal case in May/June 2007 which held (for Wimbledon
Common) that since the trustees had no power to grant an easement it
could not be acquired by adverse possession (squatters rights)
either.

.. Thanks for that and have now read it - copied below.


.. THE registered proprietors of a house built in the late nineteenth
century claimed that their property enjoyed the benefit of an easement,
being a pedestrian and vehicular right of way, over Wimbledon
Common. They contended that the easement had been acquired by
“long prescription” pursuant to section 2 of the Prescription Act
1832, as it had been used openly and as of right for a period of more
than
40 years next before the commencement of proceedings. The claim failed
before the Adjudicator to the Land Registry, and an appeal to the High
Court was dismissed (Housden v. Conservators of Wimbledon & Putney
Commons [2007] EWHC 1171, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2543) on the grounds
that the Conservators in whom the common was vested lacked capacity
to grant an easement over the relevant land and that long
prescription, being based on a presumed grant, could not therefore
operate in favour of the claim. However, the claimants succeeded before
the Court of
Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1172, Mummery,
Carnwath, Richards L.JJ.) which unanimously held that the Conservators
had power to grant an easement over the common. [...]

Thanks for that, I didn't see the report of the Court of Appeal.


--
Mike D

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts
and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter
lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act,
but you've looked for public acts.

I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals.

And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the
site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries.
I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the
one we're looking for.

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public
acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the
latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a
local act, but you've looked for public acts.

I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals.

And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the
site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered
queries. I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that
wasn't the one we're looking for.

Indeed, I now have a response from opsi:

"The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily
available in electronic format.

[deleted text]

The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local
Legislation in the United Kingdom. Please use the following link and
scroll down to about the middle of the page.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts

Many of these will also hold general legislation."

The link might be of interest to the OP. It contains a list of places
where he might be able to consult a printed copy.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts
and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter
lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but
you've looked for public acts.

I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals.

And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the
site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries.
I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the
one we're looking for.

Indeed, I now have a response from opsi:

"The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in
electronic format.

[deleted text]

The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local Legislation in
the United Kingdom. Please use the following link and scroll down to about
the middle of the page.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts

Many of these will also hold general legislation."

I got a closely related reply. Here's more of its text:

The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available
in electronic format. Although the Statute Law Database does hold Local
Acts enacted after 1991, these are not revised. There are a very small
selection of Pre-1991 Local Acts that are revised by the SLD Editorial
team, but the criteria for doing this is lost in the mists of time! They
were inherited from the text of Statutes in Force, but there is nothing
in the guide to the edition which explains why they were included.

The good news is that we are planning to launch a new website later this
year which merges the functionality of OPSI and SLD websites
and it is our intention to include pre-1991 Local Acts, but they will
only be available in their original form i.e. they won't be revised.

So basically, local acts are very much second-class citizens, and will
remain so. When local acts are things like the Ormskirk and Wrabness Ferry
Slipway Act 1972, fair enough. But this act is actually a pretty major
piece of legislation, more important in its concrete impact than most
general public acts, i'd guess (it's the basis for the BTP, for instance),
and it seems a bit of an omission not to have it, or to have any intention
of providing it in amended form. Still, the OPSI/SLD teams have a big job
and a small budget, so they can't do everything that we might like.

tom

--
Swords not words!

On 4 Jan, 22:24, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts
and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter
lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but
you've looked for public acts.

I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals.

And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the
site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries.
I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the
one we're looking for.

Indeed, I now have a response from opsi:

"The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in
electronic format.

[deleted text]

The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local Legislation in
the United Kingdom. *Please use the following link and scroll down to about
the middle of the page.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts

Many of these will also hold general legislation."

I got a closely related reply. Here's more of its text:

* The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available
* in electronic format. Although the Statute Law Database does hold Local
* Acts enacted after 1991, these are not revised. There are a very small
* selection of Pre-1991 Local Acts that are revised by the SLD Editorial
* team, but the criteria for doing this is lost in the mists of time! They
* were inherited from the text of Statutes in Force, but there is nothing
* in the guide to the edition which explains why they were included.

* The good news is that we are planning to launch a new website later this
* year which merges the functionality of OPSI and SLD websites
* and it is our intention to include pre-1991 Local Acts, but they will
* only be available in their original form i.e. they won't be revised.

So basically, local acts are very much second-class citizens, and will
remain so. When local acts are things like the Ormskirk and Wrabness Ferry
Slipway Act 1972, fair enough. But this act is actually a pretty major
piece of legislation, more important in its concrete impact than most
general public acts, i'd guess (it's the basis for the BTP, for instance),
and it seems a bit of an omission not to have it, or to have any intention
of providing it in amended form. Still, the OPSI/SLD teams have a big job
and a small budget, so they can't do everything that we might like.

tom

--
Swords not words!

The wonderful TSO have sent me the hard copy. Looks like photocpied
from somewhere. Two staples down the side to hold it together. It is
indeed the item with reference to BTP. If anyone needs an extract I
am sure I can pdf and send if permissable.....

In message
,
Desmo Paul wrote:
The wonderful TSO have sent me the hard copy. Looks like photocpied
from somewhere. Two staples down the side to hold it together. It is
indeed the item with reference to BTP. If anyone needs an extract I
am sure I can pdf and send if permissable.....

Why not send it to the Railways Archive? They have a general permission
to republish such materials.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: