EV-0640 — Chambers case summary: Colin Dawson Windows Ltd v King's Lynn & West Norfolk BC (2005), considering BP Properties Ltd v Buckler

Artifact page · Catalogue record added 27 October 2026

Catalogue record

EV IDEV-0640
TitleChambers case summary: Colin Dawson Windows Ltd v King's Lynn & West Norfolk BC (2005), considering BP Properties Ltd v Buckler
Date of document20 January 2005 (date of judgment)
Typelegal commentary
Source / publisherMaitland Chambers case summary (Court of Appeal, Rix LJ and Jonathan Parker LJ)
Reference(2005) NPC 8; LTL 20/1/2005; cites BP Properties Ltd v Buckler, Independent, 18 August 1987
Evidence labelSECONDARY SOURCE (CITATION OF EV-0080)
StatusHELD (copy received 27 October 2026); transcript below

Transcript

Chambers case-summary web page; address bar (as text): maitlandchambers.com/Cases/Detail.asp?CaseID=571

Colin Dawson Windows Ltd v (1) King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council (2) Winifred Howard (2005) (2005) NPC 8; LTL 20/1/2005 Court of Appeal Rix LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Members: George Hayman · Areas of Practice: Real Estate · Date of Judgment: 20 January 2005

Facts: It was natural to draw an inference of permission to remain on land, where a person was in possession pending negotiations for the grant of an interest in that land. In the instant case, there was an implied licence that the respondent company was being permitted to remain on the land in question pending completion of negotiations for its purchase and accordingly it could not establish a full 12 years' adverse possession.

Held: (1) There was no uncertainty in H's identification in 1990 of the relevant property as her former home. The judge was correct that H had proved that the house she and her husband had lived in lay within the area now occupied by D's car park. H had proved her paper title to part of the site. (2) In deciding there was no implied licence to remain, the judge was wrong to find assistance in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd & ors v Graham & anr (2002) UKHL 30, (2002) 28 EG 129 (CS) distinguished. He was also mistaken in characterising the facts of the instant case as in any way demonstrating or dependent on a request to vacate. The essence of the decision in Bath & North East Somerset District Council v Nicholson (2002) 10 EG 156 (CS) was that it was natural to draw an inference of permission where a person was in possession pending negotiations for the grant of an interest in that land. In the instant case, the implication of the correspondence was that D could remain on H's property only if negotiations proceeded for its sale to them, Nicholson applied and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler Independent, August 18, 1987 considered. A reasonable person in H's or D's position would conclude that D was being permitted to remain on the land pending completion of the negotiations. Accordingly, D could not establish a full 12 years' adverse possession.

Appeal allowed.

Transcription note: Screen capture of a barristers' chambers case summary. Transcribed in full; browser bookmark bar omitted. The parties named are the parties to that reported case.

Destination

  • Where the original is held: Original: the Maitland Chambers online case summary (CaseID 571). Our copy: a screen capture held by the family.
  • On this site: this artifact page, listed in the Evidence Register, and cited from the judgment page EV-0080.
  • Image: the copy held is not reproduced here; the transcript stands in for it (third-party copyright).

Interpretation

A 2005 Court of Appeal decision on implied permission during negotiations, in which BP Properties Ltd v Buckler was "considered".

Cited on

2 pages link here.

Evidence Register

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.