Common Law instead of...
soolie
following LA's guide and using the Countryside and Rights of Way Act?
Anyone have an idea?
http://www.oss.org.uk
naked_draughtsman
Is it more dificult to prove something under common law than statute where
is (should) be written down in black and white?
peter
soolie
Yes but there are so many get out clauses in statute. I am considering
taking legal action in a number of cases where most folks would use a
different approach. I am forced into it by a CC which just doesn't
take the issue seriously. If I use the usual procedures I know it will
be a couple of years before they even consider it.
Nigel
wrote:
I'm trying to work out what precedent under common law you ar relying
on? The reason for a lot of staute law is that common law has large
holes in it.
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise
soolie
The main reason I would like to use common law is to avoid the 20 year
rule and also to hopefully get away from a CC drawn out procedure.
Nigel
wrote:
>
>The main reason I would like to use common law is to avoid the 20 year
>rule and also to hopefully get away from a CC drawn out procedure.
I appreciate that but exactly what precedent set under common law are
you going to rely on?
I'm really struggling here to think of decisions or cases that have
been decided under common law where later staute law hasn't either
clarified the common law or set precedents that over rule common law.
N
soolie
I am also at a loss and that is why I posed the question. The blue
book refers to R v Petrie(1855) where a period of 8 years was
accepted, in Rugby Charity Trustees v Merryweather (1790) where 6
years was accepted and in Rowley v Tottenham Urban District Council
(1914) where 3 years was accepted. The problem I have has now been
rejected by the RoW Committee and one issue was the FP was allegedly
closed by the Government during the war and if this was accurate it
would make the 20 year period difficult.
Nigel
wrote:
Look at the age of all three of these cases you cite. Since the most
recent there have been how many highways acts? Trying to use one of
these decisions now when there are more recent acts that give specific
dates on how long the dedication period is and you're in gone to be in
a lot of difficulties.
Common law isn't a panacea to use as an alternative to statute. There
are times when decisions can still be used as precedents but where
there is newer legislation that is almost inevitably going to be the
guiding principle adhered to.
Nigel
soolie
<SPAMHAT...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Yes I recognise your point but what I quoted is taken from the latest
edition of the Blue Book.
Nigel
wrote:
>>>
>>>I am also at a loss and that is why I posed the question. The blue
>>>book refers to R v Petrie(1855) where a period of 8 years was
>>>accepted, in Rugby Charity Trustees v Merryweather (1790) where 6
>>>years was accepted and in Rowley v Tottenham Urban District Council
>>>(1914) where 3 years was accepted. The problem I have has now been
>>>rejected by the RoW Committee and one issue was the FP was allegedly
>>>closed by the Government during the war and if this was accurate it
>>>would make the 20 year period difficult.
>>
>>Look at the age of all three of these cases you cite. Since the most
>>recent there have been how many highways acts? Trying to use one of
>>these decisions now when there are more recent acts that give specific
>>dates on how long the dedication period is and you're in gone to be in
>>a lot of difficulties.
>>
>>Common law isn't a panacea to use as an alternative to statute. There
>>are times when decisions can still be used as precedents but where
>>there is newer legislation that is almost inevitably going to be the
>>guiding principle adhered to.
>
>Yes I recognise your point but what I quoted is taken from the latest
>edition of the Blue Book.
And you've run into exactly the problem I outlined. They are citeable
cases but it doesn't mean they have to be followed by a court (or
other decision making body)
I'd suggest in your current case that you need to try and find the
piece of paper that closed the FP, check the wording of it and
importantly see if it was time bound e.g. war use only.
I presume it's an FP across a wartime airfield or something of that
ilk?
soolie
<SPAMHAT...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:36:57 +0000, soolie <soo...@googlemail.com>
>>Yes I recognise your point but what I quoted is taken from the latest
>>edition of the Blue Book.
>
>And you've run into exactly the problem I outlined. They are citeable
>cases but it doesn't mean they have to be followed by a court (or
>other decision making body)
>
>I'd suggest in your current case that you need to try and find the
>piece of paper that closed the FP, check the wording of it and
>importantly see if it was time bound e.g. war use only.
>
>I presume it's an FP across a wartime airfield or something of that
>ilk?
>
There was a lane across a nearby wartime airfield that was closed
until 1950 but there is no map of it. The CC have mistakenly taken
this to be the route I am claiming.