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