Davies & Ors v Forestry Commission

Permission to appeal from a Lands Tribunal decision is refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error of law or decision outside the Tribunal’s discretionary limits. A costs order requiring payment of one-half of the objector’s costs may properly be left for detailed assessment, allowing arguments that particular expenditure was disproportionate or unjustified. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not provide a remedy for interference with property rights of the kind considered. A Tribunal may require an oral hearing where, after reviewing written representations, it cannot fairly determine material issues without oral evidence.

The applicants owned land subject to a restrictive covenant imposed for the benefit of adjoining Forestry Commission land. Under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, they sought discharge or modification of the covenant, including modification permitting conversion of existing buildings into a dwelling.

The Lands Tribunal refused discharge and one proposed modification, but permitted implementation of the planning permission. It awarded the Forestry Commission £2,450 and ordered the applicants to pay one-half of its costs. The applicants sought permission to appeal, alleging breach of Article 8, failure to consider evidence, and an improper decision to hold an oral hearing and make the costs order.

1. Outcome. Permission to appeal and an extension of time were refused.
2. The Article 8 ground was wholly misconceived. The dispute concerned interference with property rights, not an interference with private or family life for which Article 8 supplied a remedy.
3. The Lands Tribunal had considered the material matters and reached conclusions open to it. No significant evidence was shown to have been omitted.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to require an oral hearing after reviewing the written representations and concluding that oral evidence was necessary on certain matters. The resulting increase in costs did not itself establish an appealable error.
5. The costs order was within the Tribunal’s discretionary limits. The order required payment of one-half of the objector’s costs, rather than a fixed sum, and the amount was subject to assessment by the Registrar. At that assessment the applicants could argue that fees were unjustified having regard to the modest sum at stake and proportionality.
6. Although the extension of time would have been granted if necessary, the issue was academic once permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission was sought to appeal the Lands Tribunal’s decision given for reasons dated 5 October 2000, with a costs addendum dated 30 October 2000. Permission and an extension of time were refused.