ARC Aggregates Ltd v Branston Properties Ltd  EWHC 1976 (Ch)
The court construes the meaning of an exception and reservation in transfers relating to mines and minerals.
The court construes the meaning of an exception and reservation in transfers relating to mines and minerals.
A transfer of part of a development site in 1988 provided that there was:
“EXCEPT and RESERVING to the Transferor ….All mines minerals and mineral substances lying beneath the surface of the Red Land [the land transferred] at a depth below the lowest level of past excavation carried out by the Transferor and its predecessors in title but without the right to work or get the said
minerals or mineral substances.”
A transfer in 1989 of the remainder of the development site contained similar provisions (by the same parties).
The transferor (ARC) argued that development work carried out on the land by the transferee’s successor in title (BP) had encroached upon the mines and minerals of which it remained the freehold owner. It sought an injunction preventing BP from encroaching on the mines and minerals, excavating them or working or carrying them off.
Had ARC excepted to itself in the transfers ownership of the mines and minerals (in which case any encroachment by BP would constitute a trespass) or had ARC merely reserved an incorporeal right in the mines and minerals by way of a profit à prendre (in which case ownership of the mines and minerals would have passed to BP and no encroachment would have occurred).
Ownership of the mines and minerals had been excepted altogether from the transfers. The exclusion in the transfers of the right to work the mines and minerals indicated that the parties did not intend to reserve for ARC a profit à prendre. A profit is a right to take something from someone else’s land and the transfers expressly prohibited ARC from doing the very thing that a profit would have permitted it to do.
Points to note/consider
- Over the last few years, historic exceptions and reservations of mines and minerals have become much more significant, with the owners of those mines and minerals seeking to extract ransom payments from surface land owners looking to develop their land.
This case shows that when buying land to develop where it appears that the mines and minerals have been excepted or reserved in the past, it is important to analyse the provisions from the relevant conveyance or transfer carefully (assuming they are readily available), rather than relying on any generic Land Registry description as to the nature of the interest in question. Did a third party truly except ownership of the mines and minerals when selling the land or did it simply reserve to itself a profit to work those mines and minerals in the future? Because of its ransom value, the former is more likely to give the third party leverage in negotiating a share in any future profit arising from the development.
- This case is also a reminder of the difference between an exception and a reservation. Although the two terms are in practice usually ‘lumped together’ and used interchangeably, they are different concepts and a court will distinguish between them by applying relevant contractual principles of interpretation (rather than just relying on labels used by the parties).
- If a third party did truly except ownership of mines and minerals, it is then necessary to consider the extent of that exception before concluding that a development by the surface owner will encroach on that third party’s mines and minerals. Another case this quarter illustrates this point. In Wynne-Finch and others v Natural Resources Body for Wales  EWHC 1924 (Ch), the claimants argued that they had retained ownership of everything below the surface, including all mudstone, of land used for forestry and owned by the National Assembly for Wales as a result of exceptions made on sales in 1919 and enclosure awards under a private Act of Parliament passed in 1816.
The judge decided that the exception of ownership of mines and minerals was directed at a more limited category of material (e.g. lead, slate, zinc and other metalliferous minerals) found in the area. Mudstone would not have been viewed as worth quarrying and selling commercially in 1816 or 1919 and a claim to own everything below the surface made no sense given the shallowness of the topsoil. Erecting or extending any farm or building, putting in fencing, constructing any road or track or digging trenches for pipes, drains or cesspits would all involve trespassing on or disturbing the subsoil. In any event, the judge felt that even if she were wrong on this point, the surface owner had extinguished the claimants’ title to the mudstone by adverse possession by quarrying for it in small areas for over 12 years (there was existing authority that actions in part of an area by a single paper title owner can be evidence of factual possession of the whole area).
Professional Development Lawyer
+44 (0)115 934 2019
You may be interested in...
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Mediation – remote or in person?
Government to expand network and Information systems regulations
Confirmation of ACAS early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
New provisions for higher-risk residential buildings now in force
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
UK Government publishes the Online Safety Bill: an overview
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has approval to take over from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Browne Jacobson advises Natural England on investigation of ‘first in its kind’ sentenced Devon farmer
Litigation in 2023 – Reforms on the horizon
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
Consumer duty part 3 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Consumer duty part 2 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd  EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
The Future of Mediation
Directors fined for unsafe removal of asbestos
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
Don't look down
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
DSA approved: Targeted Advertising Rules explained
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
HSE inspection of asbestos in schools
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have announced they will be carrying out a programme of inspections to primary and secondary school establishments from September 2022. The inspections will assess how schools are managing the risks from asbestos and meeting the Duty to Manage requirements, set out in Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Consumer duty part 1 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
This article is the first in a series aimed to help firms get to grips on a practical basis with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ framework.
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
“Red tape” reform and no-fault dismissals
The Government has announced a change to the categorisation of “small” businesses to reduce the amount of regulatory compliance (or “red tape”) required. Currently, SMEs (those with fewer than 250 employees) are exempt from certain regulations – such as the obligation to comply with gender pay reporting. With effect from 3 October, these exemptions will be widened to apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.
U-turn on DEI regulatory reporting
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) proposed reforms to the Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) and the possible mandatory ADR gateway. What could this mean for your case?
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Avoiding the pitfalls of WhatsApp
The use of social media platforms and applications can have overwhelmingly positive benefits for public bodies. However, regulatory action recently taken by the Information Commissioner, has highlighted various pitfalls that public bodies should seek to avoid if allowing staff to use social media as a communication tool.
Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.