Litigation will still threaten the existence of Charlton Kings CC through the summer of 2014, because an appeal is pending after the landmark decision in the High Court of Justice last September that allowed the Cheltenham club to keep a disputed part of their outfield through 'adverse possession'.

Even if the appeal fails and they are allowed to keep Ryeworth Fields intact, the club might have to pay as much as £100,000 in legal expenses. Geoff White, a Charlton Kings official, said the club were confident of winning the case and being awarded at least a proportion of the costs. He added: “There is still a huge amount we will have to fund-raise for, which is so frustrating when these monies could be put to better use.”

The seeds of this unfortunate case were sown in 1947 when part of a field was rented out to the local village cricket club in an informal arrangement by  Arthur Mitchell, the land owner and cricket enthusiast. He gave the land to his son Lawrence that year. The club later amalgamated to become Charlton Kings, and the last of the three club members on the agreement died in 1974, having held the tenancy on trust for the club. After that year the rent, by now £20 a year, was not paid or sought.

Lawrence Mitchell's elderly widow Jacki claimed ownership in High Court through inheritance, but Mr Justice Morgan ruled that the family's title to the land had been extinguished by statutory limitation, in this case 12 years from the last rent payment. The cricket club successfully argued that they had acquired possessory title as frequent users, which meant they could not be forced by Mrs Mitchell to give up their tenancy. The loss of the disputed land would have reduced the size of the outfield to an extent that cricket could not be played.

Describing the dispute as “highly unusual”, Mr Justice Morgan commented: "I would understand if Mrs Mitchell felt that the result in this case was very harsh". His remark would draw hollow laughs from club devotees around the country at a time when sports open spaces are constantly under threat. Many people might think it would have been much more harsh if the club, a community asset with 170 youth cricketers on their books, had been forced out of existence. This land was only a small part of substantial acreage owned by the Mitchell estate, so the Limitation Act 1980 seems to have saved cricket for this area, a game Arthur Mitchell loved all those years ago.  

Charlton Kings issued a statement in January warning that Mrs Mitchell had been given permission to appeal on “technical issues” and that the hearing was expected this summer. “In order to secure the club’s future and counter Mrs Mitchell’s claim, the club committee has assembled a very strong and experienced legal team. Based on advice from our legal team, the committee is confident that the club will win the case. The committee would, once again, like to thank all members and friends of the club for their continued support during this difficult time.”

Mr Justice Morgan dismissed the Mitchell claim for the following reasons:

> The effect of payment and acceptance of rent from 1947 onwards resulted in the implied grant by conduct of a tenancy on the same terms as the agreement of June 1947;
> The tenancy was impliedly granted by reason of the payment and acceptance of rent. The fact that the terms of the tenancy were the same as those set out in the written agreement does not make such agreement the relevant lease in writing and, as a result, the 1980 Act applies;
> It does not matter whether the tenancy was within the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 on and after 8 October 1974: the 1980 Act has the effect of treating the tenancy as being determined at the expiry of the first period of treated as having accrued at that date or, if later, the date of the last receipt of rent. As these things are treated as having happened, it makes no difference if they have not actually happened and so time runs against a landlord who has not given notice to quit to determine the tenancy and who is not entitled to possession;
> On the evidence (e.g. cutting the grass, organised working parties on the land, spectators walking or sitting on the land etc) the tenant had been in adverse possession for the purposes of the 1980 Act for 12 years from 8 October 1974. Nothing happened during that time which amounted to the tenant ceasing to be in possession of the land in issue. Accordingly, on 8 October 1986 the landlord's title was extinguished and the tenant was entitled to a possessory title to that land.