PROPERTY CHAMBER, LAND REGISTRATION
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

ORDER

Case Number:	REF/2013/0701

Title Number:	DY388735

Property:	Land Lying To The North Side Of Heath Road Holmewood

Applicant:	Stanley George Williamson

Respondent:	John Michael Sanderson, Bryon Smith, Terry Green, Robert James Kevin Hall and David Grainger

1.	The Statement of Case of the Applicant is struck out as vexatious and as having no reasonable prospect of success.
2.	The Chief Land Registrar is to cancel the application of the Applicant dated 16 May 2013.
3.	The Applicant is to pay the Respondents’ costs of these proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis unless he shows cause by 5 p.m. 29 November 2013 why such an order should not be made.
4.	Unless such objection is made by 5 p.m. 29 November 2013 the Respondents are to file and serve a statement of costs in form N260 or similar limited to costs incurred since the commencement of these proceedings on 19 August 2013 by 5 p.m. 20 December 2013.
5.	Any objections to any costs in that statement are to be served and filed by the Applicant by 5 p.m. 3 January 2014 and any response to any such objections are to be served and filed by 17 January 2014.

Reasons

1.	There are proceedings brought by the Respondents against the Applicant which were commenced in the Sheffield County Court and then transferred to the Chesterfield County Court.  In those proceedings the Respondents claim for and on behalf of the members of an allotment association which, it is said, was until 28 March 2011 a body corporate registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, and which has continued since that date, when its registration was cancelled, as an unincorporated association.

2.	The Particulars of Claim allege that there were agreements between the corporate association and the Applicant between 2005 and 2007 in relation to the land to which these proceedings relate, and which is also the subject of their claim.  In particular it is alleged that by a written agreement in 2007 it was agreed that the Applicant was to sell the land by 30 May 2013 and that if he did not do so any part or parts that remained unsold would be sold by auction at the first available opportunity and the proceeds of sale divided between the Applicant and the corporate association.  It is said that the members of the unincorporated association are the successors of the corporate association and are entitled to the benefit of the agreement.  A declaration is sought that they are entitled to enter a restriction on the register and for further or other relief including a possible order for sale of the land.

3.	The Respondents entered a notice of a pending land action on the charges register of the land in relation to this action, and the Applicant applied to have that registration cancelled.  The matter has been referred to the Property Chamber by the Chief Land Registrar.  The court action remains pending.

4.	By order dated 6 November 2013 a Tribunal Judge invited representations as to why the Applicant’s Statement of Case should not be struck out, since there is a pending land action to which the notice relates.  Representations have been made by the Applicant’s solicitors.  It is contended that the court claim is not a pending land action because the Respondents do not claim an interest in land but at best a share in the proceeds of sale and a charge.  It is also contended that the Respondents have no right to bring any action without restoring the dissolved body corporate to life.

5.	A pending land action is defined by section 2(1) of the Land Charges Act 1925, which is applied here by section 87(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002, as any action, information or proceeding pending in court relating to land or any interest in or charge on land.  It appears to me to be clear beyond argument that an action asserting a beneficial interest in the proceeds of sale of the land and seeking an order for its sale is a pending land action.  The question whether the Respondents have the right to bring the court proceedings is a matter to be decided in the court proceedings.  At present they are bringing them and it is not for the Property Chamber to rule on the merits of the claim.  If it has no merit the proper course is for the other party to apply to the court for appropriate relief.

6.	The present application has therefore no prospect of success and is vexatious.  The Respondents have sought their costs of these proceedings.  The Applicants have not yet had the opportunity to comment on that application but I do not see how they can possibly have anything to say in opposition in the circumstances.  I do, however, make the order for costs subject to their having that opportunity, and the directions given in relation to the assessment of the costs are subject to the matter being reconsidered if they do put forward any argument why some different order should be made as to costs.

Dated this Friday 22nd November 2013

By Order of The Tribunal