PROPERTY CHAMBER
FIRST –TIER TRIBUNAL 
LAND REGISTRATION DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE FROM HM LAND REGISTRY

LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002

REF NO 2013/0318

BETWEEN
NORTON ARMS BOWLS CLUB
Applicant
and

SPIRIT PUB COMPANY (LEASED) LIMITED

Respondent

Property address: Bowling Green Main Street Halton Village 

Title number: CH615456

Before: Judge Robert M. Abbey at 10 Alfred Place London WC1E 7LR on Friday 1st November 2013

Applicants Representation: In person; by Brian Worrall 

Respondents Representation:  Joseph Ollech of Counsel
__________________________________________________________________

DIRECTIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

Upon hearing the parties by case management conference on Friday 1st November 2013 

It is DIRECTED that: -

1.	The Trustees for the time being of the Applicant shall be substituted for the Applicant so that henceforth the Applicant shall be described as Leonard Crompton (President) Peter Goodwin (Chairman) and Brian Worrall (Secretary and Treasurer); the Trustees for the time being of The Norton Arms Bowls Club.

2.	The Applicant may by 5pm on [28 days from 1/11/13] file and serve additional evidence of their user of the bowling green for such period or periods of time as they deem appropriate in support of their claim and application.

3.	The Respondent may by 5pm on [28 days from 1/11/13] file and serve additional evidence in support of their allegation that such user as referred to in 2 above is with the permission of the Respondent and or the Respondent’s predecessor in title.

4.	The failure of the Respondent to complete the correct box in panel 5 of the Land Registry Form NAP is not fatal to its opposition to the Application made by the Applicant. It is accepted that the Respondent can proceed on the basis that the application be dealt with under Schedule 6, paragraph 5 to the Land Registration Act 2002 as if the correct box had actually been completed.
REASONS

1.	On further enquiry of the Applicant and on reviewing the constitution of the Bowls Club it is apparent that the Club is an unincorporated body with trustees holding the assets of the Club. It therefore follows that the Club should continue these proceedings in the names of the trustees as provided by the Applicant through their Secretary and Treasurer. 
2.	It is apparent that the question of user is particularly relevant to the claim made by the Applicant and such evidence needs to be amplified and thus made more detailed for the benefit of the Tribunal.
3.	It is also apparent that the question of user with permission is particularly relevant to the claim made by the Respondent and such evidence needs to be amplified and thus made more detailed for the benefit of the Tribunal.
4.	The Applicant in its statement of case said “The Respondent did not indicate on Form NAP that he requires the application to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, even so, the Applicant believes he still satisfies the first condition of that paragraph”. The Applicant made it clear before me that the Club took the view that the failure to complete Form NAP was potentially fatal to the position of the Respondent. Although there was a failure by the Respondent to complete the correct box in panel 5 of the Land Registry Form NAP the Respondent did insert in panel 6 of the Form  information relevant to a claim made under the first condition of Schedule 6 paragraph 5(2) of the Land Registration 2002. In this panel the Respondent then discussed this aspect of the dispute and sought to refute the Applicant’s legal arguments in that regard in three following paragraphs.
5.	The Applicant cited two cases decided by Deputy Adjudicators in 2007 and 2008. These cases took the view that failure to complete the Form NAP as required could be prejudicial to the position of the Respondent. However Counsel for the Respondent referred me to the case of Edward Keith Hopkins v Martin Clive Beacon, Janice Ann Beacon [2011] EWHC 2899 (Ch). This was a decision of Mr Justice Vos in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division and was made several years after the Deputy Adjudicator decisions. Being a High Court decision it is binding upon Tribunal Judges in the Property Chamber and by the same token Deputy Adjudicators as they were previously. 
6.	The Hopkins case was a boundary dispute and was by way of an appeal from a Deputy Adjudicator, my colleague Colin Green. Mr Hopkins failed to tick the box in the same manner as that of the Respondent in this dispute. Mr Justice Vos held that the failure to check the paragraph 5 box did not automatically mean a failure to invoke paragraph 5. As part of that interpretation he made it clear that if the failure to tick the box had occurred then the Respondent needed to show that it had in some other way on Form NAP indicated that the Respondent wished the matter to be dealt with under Schedule 6 Paragraph 5. I am of the view that the Form NAP that the Respondent served was clear to a reasonable recipient and could easily be construed as being on the basis of paragraph 5 because of the words in panel 6 of Form NAP. I am therefore satisfied that those words would have been sufficient to notify the Applicant (and the Tribunal) that the Respondent wishes the dispute to be dealt with under Schedule 6 paragraph 5. 

Dated this	 8th day of November 2013

Judge Robert M. Abbey
BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL