Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Jonathan Clay and Matthew Lewin (instructed by Capsticks LLP, Solicitors of Wimbledon) for the Claimant Douglas Edwards QC and Katherine Barnes (instructed by Joanna Mortimer, Principal Solicitor, Surrey County Council) for the Defendant Dr Ashley Bowes (instructed via Direct Access) for the Interested Party Hearing dates: 14th-16th June 2016 ____________________
(a) Put shortly, the issue is whether land held for the statutory purposes of the NHS falls within the same category as land held by a statutory undertaker for the purposes of its operations such that, consistently with the decision in Newhaven, the land in this instance would not be registrable as a matter of law.
(b) I have set out the competing submissions of the parties on this issue at [171] and, having considered the matter carefully, I prefer those of the applicant under this head.
(c) I agree with the applicant that the fact that the application land forms part of the same freehold title as the hospital site should not mean that it must be treated as part of the working hospital site when, as a matter of fact, it plainly is not and never has been.
(h) I therefore take the view that the doctrine of statutory incompatibility has no application in this case.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.