Manorial rights

Mojisola

Have you seen this - https://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/guides/public-guide-25
2 The change in the law
The Land Registration Act of 2002 says that, in certain circumstances, the person who owns certain overriding interests (such as manorial rights and chancel repair) may potentially lose them unless they are protected through registration at Land Registry before 13 October 2013. After that date they may potentially be lost if the surface land is subsequently sold without being made subject to them.

Some landowners are responding to this change in the law by seeking to register all their valuable interests in land that can be protected. Registration of these interests sometimes requires Land Registry to write to (serve notice on) the owners of titles that are subject to these interests in specific locations (manors).

The change in the law was introduced to make the register and land ownership more transparent, so that anyone buying a piece of land or property would see what they owned and have more information about what matters they were subject to.

If he's already lost in court once, can he really start the process again?

ceh209

Mojisola wrote: »

Have you seen this - https://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/guides/public-guide-25
2 The change in the law
The Land Registration Act of 2002 says that, in certain circumstances, the person who owns certain overriding interests (such as manorial rights and chancel repair) may potentially lose them unless they are protected through registration at Land Registry before 13 October 2013. After that date they may potentially be lost if the surface land is subsequently sold without being made subject to them.

Some landowners are responding to this change in the law by seeking to register all their valuable interests in land that can be protected. Registration of these interests sometimes requires Land Registry to write to (serve notice on) the owners of titles that are subject to these interests in specific locations (manors).

The change in the law was introduced to make the register and land ownership more transparent, so that anyone buying a piece of land or property would see what they owned and have more information about what matters they were subject to.

If he's already lost in court once, can he really start the process again?

According to what I've found today, the previous case was about the right to farm a certain animal (don't want to give TMI atm), it's now about mineral and mining rights. Also previously it was against the overall landowner in order to stop development, now it's about registering the rights so they're protected in future. So possibly small crucial differences which allows him to do this, but I'm not sure.

xylophone

mineral and mining rights

Fracking mania?:eek:

ceh209

xylophone wrote: »

Fracking mania?:eek:

Got it in one.

Prothet_of_Doom

Let me get this straight.

Either the developer sold you something he didn't own, in which case it's not your problem.

Or

The developer sold you something he does own, in which case it's not your problem.

I guess a Class Defence, headed by the developer, would be the ultimate reaction.

ceh209

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

Either the developer sold you something he didn't own, in which case it's not your problem.

Or

The developer sold you something he does own, in which case it's not your problem.

I guess a Class Defence, headed by the developer, would be the ultimate reaction.

No it's not about owning or not owning the land, it's about having rights to potentially enter the land and mine it. The actual consequences of which I have yet to establish

bouicca21

Might be worth doing a little local research. Manorial rights don't always include mines and minerals. Make friends with the archivists at your local record office and the local history society!

What exactly did he lose the case over? Did he establish that he did own residual manorial rights?

lincroft1710

In the past many landowners of large estates retained the mineral rights when they sold off their land. I'm not sure if this meant the original owner could enter the land and extract any minerals or (more likely) if any minerals were extracted they didn't belong to the current owner, but the original owner.

moneyistooshorttomention

ceh209 wrote: »

According to what I've found today, the previous case was about the right to farm a certain animal (don't want to give TMI atm), it's now about mineral and mining rights. Also previously it was against the overall landowner in order to stop development, now it's about registering the rights so they're protected in future. So possibly small crucial differences which allows him to do this, but I'm not sure.

Fracking....in a word.

that's what he is up to this time round. That is...wondering if he can make anything out of this. If its good enough for the Church of England then its good enough for him. I'd be willing to bet that's why this has reared its ugly head again.

ceh209

Anyone got any idea how I find out more about a case that was in the High Court? I know the year and parties involved but nothing else. This could help me in objecting to this application.