Adamson v Paddico (267) Ltd

For a pre-2000 class c town or village green under the Commons Registration Act 1965, qualifying use had to be linked predominantly to a single legally recognisable locality. Two neighbouring areas could not be combined merely because local residents knew them as distinct communities. An alternative locality had to be legally credible, exist throughout the qualifying period and be supported by predominant use. In deciding whether to rectify an erroneous register, the court had to balance the error, delay, prejudice, landowner rights and the public interest in reliable public registration. There was no fixed statutory time limit, but very prolonged delay could make rectification unjust even without specific individual prejudice. The appeal was allowed by majority.

Clayton Fields was registered in 1997 as a class c town or village green under section 13 of the Commons Registration Act 1965, following evidence of recreational use by inhabitants of Edgerton and Birkby. Paddico, successor to the original landowner, sought rectification under section 14 after an earlier claim had remained stayed. Vos J ordered deletion of the register entry, holding that the land had not been properly registered and that rectification was just: [2011] EWHC 1606 (Ch).

The appeal concerned whether Edgerton and Birkby could constitute a locality, whether registration could be supported by another locality, and whether the delay made rectification unjust.

1. Locality. The Court unanimously upheld the conclusion that, under the pre-2000 version of section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, class c use had to be connected with a single locality. Edgerton and Birkby could not be treated as one locality merely because they were familiar, well-defined suburban areas. The reasoning in Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2006] 2 AC 674, although described as obiter on this point, provided clear guidance which the court should not disturb.
2. Alternative localities. A possible alternative had to be a credible administrative locality with a credible relationship to the land, and the predominant use had to come from that locality during the relevant twenty-year period. The Edgerton Conservation Area was not a suitable locality because its statutory boundaries served conservation purposes rather than identifying a community, and it had not existed throughout the qualifying period. The parishes were localities, but use was too evenly divided to satisfy predominance.
3. Rectification and delay. Sullivan LJ and Carnwath LJ formed the majority on the justice issue. Section 14 required a balancing exercise. There was no statutory limitation period, but the public nature of the register, its availability for inspection under section 3(2), and the conclusiveness of entries under section 10 created a strong public interest in prompt correction of alleged errors. Delay was not an automatic bar, but the longer it continued, the less likely rectification became. The delay of more than twelve years was excessive. Paddico had bought with knowledge of the registration and had taken a commercial risk; little prejudice was shown to the residents.
4. Human rights and public administration. Article 6 did not require the rectification remedy to remain available indefinitely. The concept of justice was broad enough to include public reliance on the register and general administrative prejudice, including the frustration of planning policies.
5. Dissent. Patten LJ agreed on locality but would have dismissed the appeal on justice. He regarded the unlawful registration, the allocation of the land for housing and the absence of material prejudice caused by delay as factors strongly favouring rectification.

The appeal was dismissed on the locality ground but allowed on the justice ground.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal allowed by majority on the justice of rectification; the locality conclusion was upheld.
• High Court (Chancery Division) — Vos J ordered deletion of the Clayton Fields entry from the register after finding that registration was unjustified and rectification was just: [2011] EWHC 1606 (Ch).