Altnabreac station and the various legal disputes around it

[norbitonflyer]

Therefore this property transferred to the computerised register when Appleby bought the property. In turn, this means that the extent of what Appleby bought was set out in the registration application by his legal representative.

Not quite - it was already on the computerised register when he bought it from the previous owner. It was originally registered under the current system (as part of a much larger parcel) in 2014 by the forestry company (CTH 5589), who then sold part of it to one Kevin Booth (registered as CTH7265), who then sold part of that part (registered as CTH7726) to his ex-wife, who then sold it to Appleby. The deeds of 5589 show it as two separate parcels of land extending for some distance either side of, but not including, the railway.

Appleby owns what is shown on the deeds, no more and no less. That appears to include the driveway but not the platform (the boundary is shown to be several feet from the eastern edge of the building, but coincides with its northern edge). That may not agree with what NR's deeds show - we haven't seen them - but in any case there is a "burden" in the deeds (what we sassenachs call a restrictive covenenant) which appears to allow both NR and the owner of Station House to use the driveway to access their respective properties, and requires them not to obstruct each other's use of it. Without a similar "burden" applying to the dirt track (on Forestry land) leading to the property it would have no access to the outside world.

And by the way, Appleby didn't have a legal represdentative - he did his own conveyancing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And by the way, Appleby didn't have a legal represdentative - he did his own conveyancing.

Interesting!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2026 ==

Appleby owns what is shown on the deeds, no more and no less. That appears to include the driveway but not the platform (the boundary is shown to be several feet from the eastern edge of the building, but coincides with its northern edge).

Agreed.

The issue was that Appleby keeps claiming he owns other land that he does not. To avoid the driveway issue Network Rail were going to build a new entrance to the north east of the property, on land which is still on the General Sasines Register.

Amazingly- and who would have guessed it- Appleby decided he owned this land too.

I do sincerely hope that the outcome of all of this is that Appleby ends up bankrupt.

 

[Stathern Jc]

I do sincerely hope that the outcome of all of this is that Appleby ends up bankrupt.

Don't think we should speculate too much in this direction as it isn't any of our business.
However, should that point be reached or passed, there wouldn't be any scope for "damage limitation" if they feared that they might not have a prospect in the case(s). Therefore no incentive to do anything other than carry on regardless irrespective of an accumulating potential liability.
I don't think the dust is going to settle in the foreseeable.

 

[styles]

The hearing today has been adjourned to a future time TBC.

More can kicking.

I left pretty sharpish as I had other things to do so maybe it went ahead in my absence.

 

[StuBeeDoo]

I wonder what the "reason" was this time.

 

[styles]

I wonder what the "reason" was this time.

I wasn't able to get into the court room, so who knows. Clearly need to work on getting a UK Press Card.

 

[najaB]

I wasn't able to get into the court room, so who knows. Clearly need to work on getting a UK Press Card.

"Official correspondent for RailUK Forums" sounds like a spiffy title.

 

[Buzby]

Clearly need to work on getting a UK Press Card.

Having had one for 30 years or so, it doesn’t afford much apart from access to a (usually rather spartan) Press Room and little else. You’d get the same answers from the same staff (no ‘inside track’) unless you’ve established a long term rapport. The NUJ card is actually free, but you have to be a member.

 

[styles]

Having had one for 30 years or so, it doesn’t afford much apart from access to a (usually rather spartan) Press Room and little else. You’d get the same answers from the same staff (no ‘inside track’) unless you’ve established a long term rapport. The NUJ card is actually free, but you have to be a member.

The courts allowed journalists in in this instance (I believe).

I think an NUJ, UK Press Card, or SCTS media card would've sufficed.

I have no interest in actually becoming a jounro though so no plans to get such a card. I briefly looked at such cards out of curiosity and I got the impression you'd need some evidence of employment or at least some published written work in any case?

 

[Bald Rick]

The courts allowed journalists in in this instance.

I think an NUJ, UK Press Card, or SCTS media card would've sufficed.

I have no interest in actually becoming a jounro though so no plans to get such a card. I briefly looked at such cards out of curiosity and I got the impression you'd need some evidence of employment or at least some published written work in any case?

2,993 posts on here is a decent body of published work (and well written it is too)…

 

[Trainbike46]

The courts allowed journalists in in this instance.

I think an NUJ, UK Press Card, or SCTS media card would've sufficed.

I have no interest in actually becoming a jounro though so no plans to get such a card. I briefly looked at such cards out of curiosity and I got the impression you'd need some evidence of employment or at least some published written work in any case?

Like your reports on this thread? They are better quality than some articles I have read on some real news sources.

 

[AndrewE]

I have no interest in actually becoming a jounro though so no plans to get such a card. I briefly looked at such cards out of curiosity and I got the impression you'd need some evidence of employment or at least some published written work in any case?

I think a job on the Grauniad awaits your talents...

 

[Buzby]

I got the impression you'd need some evidence of employment or at least some published written work in any case?

You do - and for NUJ it has to be a ‘recognised’ publisher, (not necessarily ‘employment’ per se) but website contributors are looked upon as citizen journalists and not professional. When you say ‘let journos in’ did you mean the public was excluded?

 

[styles]

You do - and for NUJ it has to be a ‘recognised’ publisher, (not necessarily ‘employment’ per se) but website contributors are looked upon as citizen journalists and not professional. When you say ‘let journos in’ did you mean the public was excluded?

I was not allowed in, and it appeared as though only journos were allowed in (one of which I think I recognised).

Like I say, I'm not actually that vested to try and get a journalism or press card. I also suspect that in my earlier posts here I've given too much personal opinion to be considered neutral so it wouldn't quite see "fair" to me.

 

[YorksLad12]

I was not allowed in, and it appeared as though only journos were allowed in (one of which I think I recognised).

Like I say, I'm not actually that vested to try and get a journalism or press card. I also suspect that in my earlier posts here I've given too much personal opinion to be considered neutral so it wouldn't quite see "fair" to me.

Editorialising. All the newspapers do it.

We all value your reporting, either way.

 

[flitwickbeds]

If they are right they will be able to start charging the likes of Network Rail for using their driveway, so they'll be quids in.

And if they're right about owning the platform and track bed, presumably they would then have obligations towards the passengers and trains using the station in terms of health and safety? Ie paying to ensure the track is clear of leaves and snow; installing and maintaining help points, a platform shelter, and a safe pedestrian (and vehicle?) access route to the station?

No?

 

[zwk500]

And if they're right about owning the platform and track bed, presumably they would then have obligations towards the passengers and trains using the station in terms of health and safety? Ie paying to ensure the track is clear of leaves and snow; installing and maintaining help points, a platform shelter, and a safe pedestrian (and vehicle?) access route to the station?

No?

I dont think Appleby is thinking this through fully.

 

[oldman]

And if they're right about owning the platform and track bed, presumably they would then have obligations towards the passengers and trains using the station in terms of health and safety? Ie paying to ensure the track is clear of leaves and snow; installing and maintaining help points, a platform shelter, and a safe pedestrian (and vehicle?) access route to the station?

No?

Not really. If their claim to ownership of the platform and trackbed was accepted, there would have to be an agreement with Network Rail which would make the safe operation of the railway and station Network Rail's responsibility. There is a separate issue of access through the station house land which they definitely own.

Their claim to the land is set out in their 'Long awaited solum video' and takes a reference to 'such rights as I may have' in an earlier disposition as giving them ownership of large tracts of railway land. In my view, it's spurious.

 

[Singlespeed]

There is a separate issue of access through the station house land which they definitely own.

Their claim to the land is set out in their 'Long awaited solum video' and takes a reference to 'such rights as I may have' in an earlier disposition as giving them ownership of large tracts of railway land. In my view, it's spurious.

If they definitely own the driveway, because the ROS title plan shows it, by the same thinking, they don't own the house wall which is between 0.40m to 0.49m outside the boundary adjoining the platform.

The 1969 deed of sale plan clearly shows the station access road wasn't included in the sale. Therefore NR will also be heritable owners of the station access road/driveway. Hopefully they will initiate proceedings to have the CTH7726 title plan corrected.

Their solum claims and any rights falling to Appleby as the current owner of Station Cottage were dismissed as irrelevant by Lord Lake in his judgment for the EE case.

 

[styles]

The contempt hearing has been continued to the 20th February.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If they definitely own the driveway, because the ROS title plan shows it, by the same thinking, they don't own the house wall which is between 0.40m to 0.49m outside the boundary adjoining the platform.

The 1969 deed of sale plan clearly shows the station access road wasn't included in the sale. Therefore NR will also be heritable owners of the station access road/driveway. Hopefully they will initiate proceedings to have the CTH7726 title plan corrected.

Their solum claims and any rights falling to Appleby as the current owner of Station Cottage were dismissed as irrelevant by Lord Lake in his judgment for the EE case.

You assume a logical thought/reasoning process is in play.

When I see something in my favour I mention it.
Why I see something not in my favour I shut the heck up about it.
Impartiality is for expert witnesses.

That is how the law works. You don't incriminate yourself, give anything away, or help the other side to present it's case. It is up to other side to make their case. You both put your cases before the court / tribunal / keeper of the land registry and hope for a fair judgement based on the merits of the respective cases. Concede nothing, contest everything.

 

[norbitonflyer]

If they definitely own the driveway, because the ROS title plan shows it, by the same thinking, they don't own the house wall which is between 0.40m to 0.49m outside the boundary adjoining the platform.

The 1969 deed of sale plan clearly shows the station access road wasn't included in the sale.

But the deeds to CTH7726 show the eastern boundary several feet from the house, so includes at least some of the driveway. Clearly one of those documents is wrong.

It could be jointkly owned with whoever owns thge land on tghe other side ("washing line hill"), claimed by Appleby under the supposed "solum rights" but not on his title deeds so probbaly owned either by NR or, if it was part of what BR sold as CTH5589, to the Forestry Company), in wich case both parties have the righht to sue it. Or, if Appleby does own it, the burden ("easement or restrictive covenenat) in his deeds requires him to allow adjoining landowners (such as NR) to use it to access their property. Just as Appleby has the right to use the forest tracks owned by the Forestry Company (CTH 5589) to access his own property

edit - I've now seen 5589: it doesn't include Washing Line Hill, so it is NR's land

 

[SuspectUsual]

both parties have the righht to sue it

I hope that's an unfortunate typo, we don't need any more litigation!

 

[StuBeeDoo]

I understand there was another hearing today......?

 

[styles]

I understand there was another hearing today......?

Continued until the 20th February apparently. That's what I've seen online, though it's ambiguously worded so pinch of salt. I wasn't in Wick today and haven't spoke to the court clerk myself. Busy day.

If it wasn't continued, the main hearing for this is on 19th February.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Continued until the 20th February apparently. That's what I've seen online, though it's ambiguously worded so pinch of salt. I wasn't in Wick today and haven't spoke to the court clerk myself. Busy day.

If it wasn't continued, the main hearing for this is on 19th February.

20th would clash with the Inverness Sheriff Court (civil) case.

 

[styles]

20th would clash with the Inverness Sheriff Court (civil) case.

Yeah like I say, pinch of salt. Though nothing's a surprise in this saga.

 

[Stathern Jc]

A couple of days ago I saw that a High Court Trial which will attract a lot of interest is also due to commence on 20th February.
Another extremely protracted saga. Involving a Mr Murrell.
But, on looking again, see that it will be in Glasgow.

Embezzlement and Contempt on the same day.
There's something to look forward to!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Wick case, deferred to February 2 for Intermediate Diet. Full case 19 February unaffected. They phoned to say they had difficulties travelling to the court on the 21st. Also had not received the Crown evidence including over an hour of video footage. Should prove fascinating viewing.

Full details in the John O'Groat Journal.

 

[Dan G]

And if they're right about owning the platform and track bed, presumably they would then have obligations towards the passengers and trains using the station in terms of health and safety? Ie paying to ensure the track is clear of leaves and snow; installing and maintaining help points, a platform shelter, and a safe pedestrian (and vehicle?) access route to the station?

No?

For avoidance of doubt, all their claims to land beyond that shown on CTH7726 are dead, are they not?

The EE ruling was that their land is limited to CTH7726, and the court dismissed their claim against NR when they didn't turn up.