Cam Askan v Trustees of St Asaph Conservative Club

Permission to appeal requires grounds that are reasonably arguable. An appeal court may intervene for legal error, factual error or discretionary error, but factual findings attract substantial restraint and will not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or rationally insupportable. A procedural irregularity must be serious and must render the decision unjust.

Where registered title, historic conveyances and adverse possession are considered together, a trial judge is entitled to prefer a consistent documentary chain over an isolated planning document or later Ordnance Survey depiction. The pre-2002 law on adverse possession may differ materially from the statutory regime under the Land Registration Act 2002. A decision concerning the standing of an unincorporated association under the later regime does not necessarily govern a claim brought by trustees concerning earlier possession.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Humphries dated 7 February 2025. The order declared that disputed land belonged to the trustees of St Asaph Conservative Club, recognised the Club’s pedestrian right of way, granted injunctive relief against trespass and interference, and dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning CCTV, data protection, harassment and nuisance.

The applicant challenged the findings on registered title, adverse possession, the Club’s standing, the right of way, procedural fairness, alleged misconduct and alleged judicial or institutional bias. Permission was refused on paper by Sir Peter Lane on 10 June 2025. The applicant renewed the application orally before the High Court.

1. Renewed application refused. None of the grounds was reasonably arguable. The allegations of actual or apparent bias, corruption and conspiracy were unsupported and the additional grounds were abusive.
2. Under CPR r.52.21(3), an appeal may be allowed where the decision below was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Legal errors fall within legitimate appellate review. Findings of fact, however, should not be disturbed unless the trial judge was plainly wrong. The principles stated in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464 were applied. The judgment below was not rationally insupportable and was, in substance, correct.
3. The trial judge was entitled to determine registered title by analysing the conveyances and registration documents, rather than treating the illustrative plan as evidence of ownership. The documentary chain from the 1919 conveyance through the later conveyances and the 2004 registration supported the Club’s title to the red area. The use of a TR1 rather than an FR1 did not itself invalidate the registration, and the evidence supported the conclusion that there had been a first registration.
4. The adverse-possession findings were open to the trial judge. The evidence that the wall and air-conditioning installations were established in 1991 was supported by contemporaneous planning material. The later appearance of the wall on Ordnance Survey mapping did not establish that it had been constructed later. Possession and intention to possess had therefore been established sufficiently long before the applicant acquired the Old Bank.
5. The reliance on Openshaw & Ors (Trustees of the East Lancashire Cricket Club v P&F Properties Ltd) was correctly distinguished. That decision concerned the post-2002 statutory regime and applicants who were not trustees. The present claim concerned pre-2002 possession and was brought by trustees of the unincorporated association.
6. The right of way claim was sufficiently raised by the Defence and Part 20 Claim, and the evidence supported a prescriptive right acquired before the applicant’s involvement. The CCTV claim could not establish data protection breach, harassment or nuisance where the Club was recording its own property and the applicant was trespassing.
7. The remaining complaints concerned matters irrelevant to the order under appeal, unsupported allegations, or case-management decisions within the trial judge’s discretion. The renewed application for permission to appeal was denied.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The renewed oral application for permission to appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Humphries dated 7 February 2025 was denied.
• Single judge on paper: Sir Peter Lane refused permission to appeal by order dated 10 June 2025 and dismissed the application to rely on amended grounds as abusive.
• County Court trial: His Honour Judge Humphries declared that the disputed land belonged to the Club’s trustees, recognised a right of way, granted injunctive relief and dismissed the applicant’s claims.