British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Carmarthenshire County Council v Justin Stanley Adams (Alteration and rectification of the register : Alteration and rectification of the register) [2019] UKFTT 18 (PC) (05 November 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/18.html
Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 18 (PC)
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Decision summary
REF/2017/0612
| Case reference | REF/2017/0612 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 05/11/2018 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Owen Rhys |
| Applicant | Carmarthenshire County Council |
| Respondent | Justin Stanley Adams |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Alteration and rectification of the register |
| Sub Category | Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Alteration and rectification of the register |
| Sub Category | Alteration affecting the title of land in the possession of a registered proprietor |
| Decision notes | [2019] UKFTT 18 (PC). On first registration of pub premises, two small clothes drying areas forming part of two adjoining local authority housing estates had been included by mistake. The mistake was admitted by the Respondent, the owner of the pub, who had acquired the premises in July 2015. The Council applied to alter the register to remove these areas. The evidence was that the pub owner had not been in possession of the disputed areas at the date of his purchase, but had gone into possession by the date of the Council’s application, in October 2016. Since neither fraud nor lack of proper care was alleged, the application had to be decided by reference to Sch. 4 para 6(2)(b) i.e whether “it would for any other reason be unjust for the alteration not to be made”. The register was rectified, since it was held that it would be unjust for the alteration not to be made. A number of competing factors were relied on by each side. Of particular importance was the finding that when the Respondent bought the pub, he knew perfectly well that the disputed areas were used by the Council’s tenants as drying areas, and that he was only able to obtain possession by demolishing boundary walls. |
| Download decision(s) | [2019] UKFTT 18 (PC) |