Shuaiqi/CLSum huggingface dataset:
In order to be as of right, use must not be by force, nor stealth, nor by permission of the landowner [20, 67, 87 107, 115]. The law in this area was also concerned with how the matter would have appeared to the reasonable landowner [36]. There was great difficulty in seeing how a reasonable landowner would have concluded that the residents were not asserting a right to take recreation on the disputed land simply because they showed civility towards members of the golf club [36]. The inspector misdirected himself as to the significance of perfectly natural behaviour by the residents [38, 96]. The appeal would be allowed and the council should register the land [49, 78, 97 108, 116]. The Respondent had argued that the rights of the residents after registration of a village green afforded them unqualified use of the land whatever the landowner wished to do with it. There would be a mismatch between what the residents would have done to gain the rights and what they would be in a position to do after the green had been registered. However, Lords Walker and Rodger considered that there was little danger in normal circumstances of registration leading to a sudden diversification or intensification of use by residents [47, 84]; the parties could co exist. Lords Hope and Kerr considered that there was a broad equivalence between the use relied on to establish the right and what the land might be used for after registration, although there may be some asymmetry as to the manner of its use pre and post registration [72, 115]. Lord Brown considered that the locals could increase their use of the land but only in so far as it would not be incompatible with the owner continuing with his previous use [101]. Lord Hope suggested that the forthcoming review of village greens by the Government should look at the consequences of registration as revealed by the developing case law as well as how the registration system itself is working [56].