Leeds Group Plc v Leeds City Council

The presumption in section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 that the singular includes the plural applies to section 22(1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. Nothing in the statutory context requires “any neighbourhood” to mean one neighbourhood only. Land may therefore qualify as a Class C town or village green through qualifying use by significant numbers of inhabitants of two or more neighbourhoods within a locality.

For user to be “as of right”, ample and open recreational use that is more than trivial or sporadic is capable of giving a reasonable owner notice that a public right is being asserted. The owner need not know the precise locality or neighbourhood from which the users come.

A local resident applied in July 2004 to register Yeadon Banks, including land owned by Leeds Group Plc, as a Class C town or village green under section 22(1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. An inspector found that significant numbers of inhabitants from the adjacent areas known as Banksfield and The Haws had openly used the land for lawful sports and pastimes for the requisite period.

His Honour Judge Behrens dismissed the landowner’s statutory and judicial-review challenges: [2010] EWHC 810 (Ch). The landowner appealed, principally contending that “neighbourhood” could not include more than one neighbourhood and that pre-amendment use was legally insufficient to put an owner on notice. It also challenged the costs order.

1. The appeal was dismissed by a majority (Sullivan and Arden LJJ; Tomlinson LJ dissenting). The Court held that section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies unless a contrary intention appears. Section 22(1A) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 contains no such intention in respect of “any neighbourhood”.

2. The amended Class C regime introduced a deliberately imprecise concept of a neighbourhood within a locality. It was intended to remove technical obstacles associated with the historic locality rule. It would distort that purpose if substantial use by inhabitants of one neighbourhood could support registration, but equivalent use by inhabitants of two adjacent neighbourhoods prevented it. The statutory safeguard was the requirement that the users comprise a significant number of inhabitants.

3. The majority rejected the quality-of-user ground. Applying the approach to prescription explained in [2010] UKSC 11 and [2000] 1 AC 335, ample and open recreational use by a significant number of local inhabitants was sufficiently substantial to appear to a reasonable owner as the assertion of a public right. The owner was not required to know, without investigation, whether users came from a qualifying locality, neighbourhood, or neighbourhoods. The evidence therefore satisfied the “as of right” requirement.

4. The costs challenge failed. The judge had been entitled to treat the landowner as unsuccessful on practically every material issue, notwithstanding its limited success in showing that the two areas were not one composite neighbourhood.

5. After judgment, the Court granted permission to add a late ground concerning the effect of the 2000 amendment on asserted vested rights. It made the permission subject to the respondent’s proposed costs protection, directed a further hearing before the same constitution, and expressed no view on that ground’s merits.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By majority, dismissed the appeal on the neighbourhood, quality-of-user and costs grounds. It also granted conditional permission to add a further ground for a later hearing before the same constitution: [2010] EWCA Civ 1438.

• High Court (Chancery Division): His Honour Judge Behrens dismissed the claims under section 14 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 and for judicial review, upholding the registration: [2010] EWHC 810 (Ch).

• High Court (Chancery Division): The judge ordered Leeds Group Plc to pay the Council’s costs of both claims: [2010] EWHC 1102 (Ch).