The lucky winners spent the day learning core elements of equine law, including equine contracts, equestrian property transactions and equine disputes. 

The students thorougly enjoyed their day with leading equine lawyer, Sarah Jordan.  Sophie Phillips, who traveled from Stratford to Petersfield for the day said, ‘My studentship day at Daltons was a really fantastic opportunity to explore my passion for equine law further.  I was able to engage in all kinds of equine legal matters from property sales to purchase disputes and ultimately realise what it would be like to practice as an equine lawyer.  The staff at Daltons were exceptionally friendly and welcoming and made me feel completely at home, allowing me to optimise my learning experience.  I really would like to thank Sarah Jordan and Daltons for taking the time to create this unique experience for those who, like myself, are interested in such a specialist area of law.’

Sarah was delighted with the enthusiastic approach the students took with the tasks set them and as a result Daltons are planning to make this an annual national award.

An intensive eight-hour schedule has been devised to ensure the students obtain a good basic understanding of equine contract law, equestrian property transactions and equine dispute law.  In addition Sarah will take students to lunch where they can quiz her about life as an equine lawyer and a career in law in general.

Sarah comments: “I regularly receive requests from students who want to be an equine lawyer … the Equine Law Studentship has been designed to satisfy these requests subject to application.  I intend this to be an annual award giving students the opportunity to learn about this specialist career path.”

To apply please submit two maximum 100 word responses to the following questions:

(1)      For who and why is it important that a lien clause be incorporated into a livery agreement?

(2)      What reasons would make you a good equine lawyer?

Information can be found at: www.equinelawyer.co.uk

Replies are to be sent to Sarah by email at sarahjordan@daltons-law.co.uk by no later than 4pm on Friday 18 June.  Applicants must include their name, date of birth, place of education and contact telephone number.

Sole discretion over the winning applications rests with a panel of judges at Daltons and the winners will be notified of their success by the end of June.  The successful applicants must be available this July or August 2010, be able to attend at Sarah’s office in Petersfield, Hampshire and be interested in pursuing a career in law.  The judges’ results are final.  Details of the judging panel can be obtained from Daltons.  This competition is not open to employees or relatives of employees of those associated with this award scheme.

The Code is designed to act as a tool when bringing evidence in prosecution cases.   In particular, it will make it clear to any ‘non-horsey’ judge / lawyer exactly what should be done in practice, which will aid them when making a decision on any particular welfare case in hand.

The Code should also be a starting point for anyone wishing to report a welfare case as this will aid the investigating charity (such as the RSPCA).

1.  Welwyn Hatfield Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2010] EWCA Civ 26.  The Court of Appeal allowed a landowner’s appeal and held that the landowner was entitled to a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD) for a dwelling house the landowner had hidden within a hay barn he had permission for.  The landowners waited the requisite four years before applying for the CLEUD and by this stage the planners were told by the Court of Appeal that they were too late and the development had acquired immunity from planning enforcement action.  This was the case, even though it was proved that the landowner had deliberately deceived the Council in this respect!

2.  In conflict, Fidler v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 143 , did not get away with deceiving the Council.  The landowner built a house without obtaining planning permission and concealed it behind bales of straw covered with a tarpaulin.  After four years, the landowner removed the straw bales and tarpaulin to reveal the house.  The High Court in this instance held that the erection and removal of the bales and tarpaulin were not building operations in their right and that the landowner had always intended to remove the bales and tarpaulin so, as a matter of fact and degree, their removal was part of the building operations when the totality of the operations as originally contemplated and intended was considered.  Therefore, the property was not immune from enforcement action by the Council  and an order for the demolition of the house was granted.