header-logo header-logo

17 October 2013
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Banker can’t lord it over villagers

Owner of Over Hall loses title but keeps his land in Court of Appeal battle

A “Lord of the Manor” has lost his title but held his land after a dispute with villagers.

Former banker Peter Burton and his partner bought Over Hall, a dilapidated 17th century manor house in Lancashire, near the village of Ireby. 

Burton purchased the title, Lordship of the Manor of Ireby, for £1 after discovering its existence among old title deeds. He then sought to register ownership of 360 acres of Ireby Fell, registered common land nearby, which he believed belonged to the title holder.

In 2005, the Land Registry confirmed the Burtons’ ownership of the Fell and they began to exert authority over the area, putting up a gate and fencing, asking locals not to park on the land and letting out shooting and grazing rights. This strained relations between the couple and local villagers.

Five local residents brought a legal challenge. They relied on a 1254 charter of King Henry III, which granted land to the Knights Hospitaller of St John of Jerusalem, and later historical records from the Tudor period through to the present day.

In 2010, the Land Registry held that the manorial title had lapsed but the couple were the proprietors of the land. 

The residents contended that since the couple did not have the title they should not have the land.

However, the Court of Appeal this week upheld an earlier High Court ruling in favour of the Burtons.

Lord Justice Mummery, giving the lead judgment in Walker v Burton [2013] EWCA Civ 1228, said that while the 14 lever arch files of historical materials were “interesting. Very little of it is of direct legal relevance”.

Dismissing the five local residents’ appeal, he said there was “no prospect” of anyone other than the Burtons being registered as proprietors of the Fell, since the appellants made no claim and the Crown showed no sign of asserting its right to the title. 

“It was a relevant consideration that the Fell should be owned by someone rather than left in limbo with continuing uncertainty about title to it,” he said. Moreover, the Burtons “had invested time, effort and money on improving the Fell and its management”.

 

Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll