The Battle for Broxhead Common
BW46 when it was last cleared in 2010
The Case for Hampshire County Council – PART 55
continuing the Statutory Declaration by MRP
- Paragraph 5.8 states:
“The appeal decision, inter alia, contained an order that…”
30 years later we found out that the Court of Appeal had ordered nothing because the case had been dismissed: “Whilst the appeal decision does not specifically refer to the attached plan other than in connection with the area edged in red [Tollgate House]…”
The Court of Appeal had no concerns about ownership or otherwise, the case about commoners’ rights had been dismissed on the terms the Parties had themselves cooked up and agreed. The Parties being: Hampshire County Council, Rosemary Cooke, Mr Connell and Mr Whitfield. The Commoners of Broxhead had relied on HCC to represent their interests. Connell and Cooke having resigned from the Broxhead Commoners Association after the High Court Case on 24th March 1977, represented only themselves at this juncture! - Paragraph 5.9 states” “Furthermore, as a result of the Order of the Court of Appeal the Common was so leased to Hampshire County Council for a term of 20 years from the 24th May 1978. Attached to that lease is a plan which clearly includes the Common including the Blue Land.”
So, the deal with Hampshire County Council erroneously made in 1978/80 is being relied on to support the applicants claim for ownership!
Cherry picking the Schedule to the Court Order for the dismissal of the case is unpardonable. The whole agreement must be fulfilled and that would have included the application to the Secretary of State for the fencing around the 80 acres; especially if there had been an intention for it to remain, as its continued presence after 43 years confirms. - Paragraph 5.10 states: “I should therefore submit that save as mentioned below there is no doubt whatsoever that the Common (including the Blue Land) is in the ownership of Mr Whitfield.”
It can now be seen that this statement is based on the false perception that the Schedule to dismissal of the case from the Court of Appeal could be literally taken as an Order rather than an agreement by the parties which they must adhere to. By not seeking statutory consent for the fencing as indicated in the Schedule, the Parties must be in contempt of court!
the heather on Broxhead Common.
BW46 when it was last cleared in 2010
Next time: to be continued, the Statutory Declaration of Michael Roydon Porter 2001.