A ST Asaph businessman has lost a High Court battle with HM Land Registry about a strip of land beside the former HSBC bank on the city’s High Street.
Cam Askan, owner of Old Bank Buildings, claimed Land Registry had “unlawfully altered” nearby title plans and created a new “East Side” title, costing him land and development potential worth about £135,000.
He also accused officials of acting outside their legal powers, abusing their public duties, and breaching his human rights.
But in a ruling handed down on Friday (June 5), the judge, Master Francesca Kaye said his claim was “hopeless”, “fanciful” and based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of what Mr Askan actually bought in 2019.
Mr Askan was also criticised for his “disruptive” behaviour by the judge, having made threats via email to court staff prior to the April hearing.
The court found that his registered title has not changed since it was first created for HSBC in 2010, and that Land Registry has “done nothing to injure him”.
The case grew out of a long‑running row with St Asaph Conservative Club, and a separate dispute about a green area with benches that St Asaph City Council is trying to register through adverse possession.
A previous case last year had already gone against Mr Askan, with a judge ruling in favour of St Asaph Conservative Club on ownership of neighbouring land.
For that case, Mr Askan made claims of harassment and nuisance against the club after it had installed CCTV overlooking land which he believed he was in “adverse possession” of.
Master Kaye said Mr Askan’s claim was effectively an attempt to “have another go” at that earlier decision without bringing the club into the case, describing this as a collateral attack and an abuse of process.
Serious allegations of “misfeasance” in public office and human rights breaches were struck out for lack of evidence and proper detail.
A separate bid by Mr Askan to have the judge step aside and to halt all related proceedings, including a pending tribunal case about the council’s land application, was also rejected.
Master Kaye wrote in her judgment: “Mr Askan was unhappy that the stay application had been listed at the hearing on April 8.
“He started to correspond with the court. His correspondence became increasingly intemperate.
“He began to make threats in that correspondence to the judges and court staff. Such conduct is unacceptable.
“This was followed by a request and then an application that I recuse myself, dated April 7.
“Although Mr Askan did initially attend the hearing on April 8, he did so only to demand that I recuse myself so that the applications could be heard by a different judge.
“His behaviour was disruptive. He made it clear that that behaviour was deliberate and intentional.
“On April 8, I dismissed the recusal application. Mr Askan left the hearing during the course of that judgment, and did not return.”
Share