Bluechester City Council v Doncaster Wagons Ltd Case Study

Bluechester City Council v Doncaster Wagons Ltd - Case Study Example If any building or a fence is erected or any construction is done, it cannot be lawful without the consent of the minister. They will order inquiries as are directed by the commons act 1876. The county courts are entitled to convict the person or the organisation that constructed the fence or any erection has been done. The order mentioned above is subjected to appeal in the higher court according to section thirty of commons act, 1876. These are the conditions that apply to the land which is declared common before the possession of it was given to a person, lord, manor or to an organisation for any purpose of public or private interest. In such conditions the parking of vehicles, erection of cabin, construction of fence by Doncaster wagons can be considered illegal and can be complained to the country court or any relevant government agency. The problem lying here is that the Blue Chester city council did not take any legal action the 12 years of duration. Now the legal question ari ses that after this much term of negligence towards occupation does the Bluechester city council do have any legal right to take action on Doncaster Wagons ltd. (Swarb.co.uk, 2007) There is every chance for the risk of Doncaster acquiring the possession rights as the title to the land is not registered. According to part 9 of the land registration act 1980, after twelve years of adverse possession of the land, which have no title registered, the occupant can acquire possessory title. The limitation act 1980 s15(1) will provide no action to recover the land after the expiration of the limitation period of twelve years under adverse possession. According to this act the expiration of the limitation period will remove the right of the true owner of the land to recover it. The person who possessed the land for 12 years will get the right to get the title superior to all others according to Buckingham shire council v Moran (1990) Ch 623, 635, CA. The period of the possession will be counted from the commencement of adverse possession and that requires a degree of occupation or physical control. This can be coupled with the intention to posses the land without the p aper owner according to JA pye (oxford) Ltd v Graham (2002) UKHL 30 (2003) 1 AC 419. The occupation by the Doncaster Wagon Ltd can be termed as seized if the company gives written acknowledgement to the true owners title. Here in this case as the true owner; Bluechester city council have no title registered, there is no chance of that issue according to the 1980 law. The period of the possession of the land can be calculated from the day of the true owner grants a tenancy or licence to the occupier. In this case this did not happen and in the time being the Bluechester city council made number of objections to Doncaster wagons Ltd to vacate it and because they are trespassing. As there is no mention of the Doncaster Wagons Ltd did pay any taxes regarding the land they adversely possess, the right of the ownership that can be claimed after the 12 years of limitation period is at stake. This option will keep alive the hopes of the Bluechester city council to get the re possession of t h