Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,770
I don't think it is that clear cut. CTH7726 is what it is. That is what is currently registered and stands until it is disputed and such claim is accepted/dismissed. A claim that the title is incorrect could be submitted at any time. Whether such a claim has any merit is a different matter. The opinion issued by Lord Lake alludes to this in that he had seen a draft by Appleby.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.
I assume the railway / platform / level crossing is not on the current register therefore creating wiggle room for people to attempt to claim ownership and forcing the rightful owners to delve into bundles of old legal documents going back to the original purchase at the time of the railways' construction and subsequent transfer through grouping, nationalisation, privatisation, renationalisation of Railtrack etc.[29] The first defender is entitled to complete his right to the solum of the railway line by means of Notice of Title as explained in the Note of Arguments. <snip> A draft Notice of Title had been lodged by the defenders. It was submitted that the first defender is gathering “what is required” to lodge the application.
Notice of Title (Railtrack ref G/189 and dated 1995) contains a detailed plan which differs from CTH7726.

