Rowena Meager is an experienced advocate whose practice, across a number of practice areas, involves trial / contested appearances before the courts (County and High Court), the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and both statutory and non-statutory inquiries (in the context of town and village greens and public rights of way). She has broad experience of appearing on behalf of parties at multi-day trials and inquiries involving substantial bodies of evidence, both of fact and across a wide range of expert disciplines. Rowena is a robust advocate and has successfully appeared unled against silks on many occasions.
Rowena practices the following areas:
Traditional Real Estate / Property Law
Rowena is a robust and experienced trial advocate with experience in a variety of forums including the County Court and High Court, the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and in the Magistrates’ Court (exercising its civil jurisdiction in contested business rates matters for which, see below). She has frequently been instructed in complex, multi-day litigation involving substantial bodies of contested evidence, both of fact and across a variety of expert disciplines.
By way of examples of her recent experience, she represented a successful respondent at a 10 day trial before the First Tier Property Tribunal on the question whether purported use of a way over a period in excess of 60 years gave rise to a right by prescription, Jones v Paddick v Hughes & Others [2025] UKFT 00839 (PC), and an 8 day trial (which settled mid-trial) in the Technology and Construction Court into the question of pollution of neighbouring land and losses said to have arisen therefrom, including issues of Rylands v Fletcher, nuisance and breach of covenant, and involving contested expert evidence across a range of disciplines including civil engineering, fish and fisheries (effects of alleged pollution), property valuation and forensic accounting.
Rowena’s traditional real property experience is broad and includes matters such as boundary disputes, adverse possession, rights of way and other easements, and restrictive covenants. She also deals with disputes concerning trusts of property (including TOLATA claims), Pallant v Morgan equities, proprietary estoppel, residential and commercial leases, service charges, forfeiture, dilapidations, nuisance, trespass, possession, contracts for the sale of land, overage agreements, procuring transfers by undue influence, rectification and other property related disputes.
As well as representing parties at hearings and trial, Rowena has a busy paper practice including the drafting of pleadings and providing advice (in writing and in conference) on prospective litigation as well as that which is already underway. She adopts both a pragmatic and strategic approach to disputes and dispute resolution and never loses sight of the commercial realities and implications of a situation. She also has a wealth of experience representing parties at mediation.
Rowena has developed a particular specialism in litigation concerning non-domestic rating liability (business rates), regularly advising and representing both rating authorities and rate payers in the Magistrates’ Court and on appeal to the High Court by way of case stated / judicial review. Much of Rowena’s work in this specialist area involves issues of property law (eg whether a tenancy exist, what constitutes ‘possession’, etc) and many of the cases in which she is involved relate to schemes of tax avoidance.
Notable and recent cases in which Rowena has been involved include her successful defence of a District Judge’s making of a liability order in the sum of £371,019.99 on appeal to the High Court in Preservation & Promotion of the Arts v Birmingham City Council [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin), a case in which the ratepayer claimed it was entitled to charitable relief which Rowena successfully resisted at trial, and her successful defence on appeal to the High Court of a District Judge’s conclusion that a tenancy upon which the owner of commercial premises relied to transfer liability for non-domestic rates was a sham, Broxfield Limited v Sheffield City Council [2019] EWHC 1946 (Admin), which Rowena had also successfully argued at trial.
Rowena has been involved in numerous multi-day trials on the question of liability, one of which recently resulted in an unsuccessful application for permission to judicially review the decision in favour of Rowena’s client and which is now the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal which will be heard in October 2025. That will consider the scope of the principles to be derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurstwood Properties v Rossendale Borough Council [2021] UKSC 16.
Rowena has experience of both company and partnership disputes having advised, drafted court documents and appeared in cases in the County Court and High Court concerning minority shareholder actions, derivative action against a foreign registered company, winding up of companies, dissolution of partnerships, partnership accounts, disqualification of directors and recovery of assets.
Rowena has a busy court and paper practice and she appears regularly in the County Court and High Court in procedural hearings (CCMC’s, PTR’s, etc), contested applications, multi-track trials and appeals. Her experience includes disputes concerning professional negligence, mistake, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and construction of commercial agreements.
Rowena has a busy advisory and court practice and she appears regularly in the County Court and High Court in procedural hearings (CCMC’s, PTR’s etc), contested applications, final hearings and appeals. Rowena has experience in both corporate and personal insolvency including winding up petitions, bankruptcy proceedings, setting aside of statutory demands, recovery of property and the establishment of third party interests in property belonging to a debtor.
Rowena has a busy court and advisory practice dealing with a range of issues including, but not limited to, applications for reasonable financial provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, contested probate claims (undue influence, capacity, etc), breach of trust, construction of trusts and wills, removal of personal representatives and actions for an account.
Rowena regularly appears in the County Court and High Court in procedural hearings, contested applications, multi-track trials and appeals. She has recently appeared in the Court of Appeal in the significant, reported case of Jennison v Jennison [2022] EWCA Civ 1682; [2023] 2 WLR 1017, where she successfully resisted a second appeal (having represented the Claimant successfully both at trial and on the first appeal) challenging the standing of a foreign executor to issue proceedings in England without first obtaining a grant of probate or resealed grant. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been refused.
By way of further examples of Rowena’s recent work, she is currently involved in litigation concerning the due execution of a will which is expected to go to trial over 5 days at the beginning of 2026 and recent advisory work includes issues concerning the proper interpretation and effect of a testamentary discretionary trust and questions surrounding the proper conduct of trustees appointed under a will and the scope of their obligations and potential liability.
Rowena’s practice under the ‘planning and environment umbrella’ is largely concerned with new town and village green applications under the Commons Act 2006, highway related work, particularly the creation, modification and extinguishment of public rights of way (sometimes in the planning context where diversion/extinguishment is necessary to facilitate development), and issues arising out of the interplay between planning law and real property / commercial law such as the effect of restrictive freehold covenants relating to property and the interpretation of agreements relating to land in a planning context such as section 106 agreements or overage agreements.
Rowena has a wealth of inquiry experience, sitting as Inspector in the context of new town and village greens as well as appearing for the parties, and appearing for the parties in rights of way work. She also has a very busy advisory practice and she is happy to advise in writing or in conference.
Recent Inquiry experience, as well as approximately 16 appointments as Inspector by commons registration authorities, includes acting for landowners / developers in village green applications, advising commons registration authorities in respect of village green applications, acting for developers in the context of footpath diversion orders and extinguishment orders, and for landowners in response to applications for DMMOs to record new public rights of way.
Examples of recent experience include Rowena’s successful representation of an Objector (Landowner) at an 8 day non-statutory public inquiry relating to ‘Land off Coombe Lane’ which resulted in a new town and village green application being refused on account (a) of a landowner statement having effectively brought qualifying user of the application land to an end in circumstances where the CRA had not complied with its duty to publish notice, and (b) prohibitory signage having effectively brought qualifying user of the application land to an end. In another application for the registration of a new town or village green, at which Rowena represented the landowner at a 4-day public inquiry, she successfully argued that the inclusion of the application land within the ‘red line’ of land, the subject of a planning permission dating back to 1989, constituted a trigger event.
In the context of public rights of way work Rowena has, by way of examples, successfully resisted the making final of a DMMO following a multi-day inquiry on the ground that the claimed PROW ended at a cul-de-sac and she successfully represented a property developer at inquiries in relation to, both, an application to extinguish a path pursuant to section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 and a path diversion order application pursuant to section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. She regularly advises on applications for DMMOs both based upon user and historical documentation.
Rowena has a wealth of inquiry experience, sitting as Inspector in the context of new town and village greens as well as appearing for the parties, and appearing for the parties in rights of way work. She also has a very busy advisory practice and she is happy to advise in writing or in conference.
Recent Inquiry experience, as well as approximately 16 appointments as Inspector by commons registration authorities, includes acting for landowners / developers in village green applications, advising commons registration authorities in respect of village green applications, acting for developers in the context of footpath diversion orders and extinguishment orders, and for landowners in response to applications for DMMOs to record new public rights of way.
Examples of recent experience include Rowena’s successful representation of an Objector (Landowner) at an 8 day non-statutory public inquiry relating to ‘Land off Coombe Lane’ which resulted in a new town and village green application being refused on account (a) of a landowner statement having effectively brought qualifying user of the application land to an end in circumstances where the CRA had not complied with its duty to publish notice, and (b) prohibitory signage having effectively brought qualifying user of the application land to an end. In another application for the registration of a new town or village green, at which Rowena represented the landowner at a 4-day public inquiry, she successfully argued that the inclusion of the application land within the ‘red line’ of land, the subject of a planning permission dating back to 1989, constituted a trigger event.
In the context of public rights of way work Rowena has, by way of examples, successfully resisted the making final of a DMMO following a multi-day inquiry on the ground that the claimed PROW ended at a cul-de-sac and she successfully represented a property developer at inquiries in relation to, both, an application to extinguish a path pursuant to section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 and a path diversion order application pursuant to section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. She regularly advises on applications for DMMOs both based upon user and historical documentation.
A recent decision of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, as commons registration authority (“the CRA”), has confronted an issue that was foreshadowed by…
The acquisition of rights through long use is a familiar concept among property lawyers. The tripartite test for qualifying use, that it must be nec…
A recent decision of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, as commons registration authority (“the CRA”), has confronted an issue that was foreshadowed by…
The acquisition of rights through long use is a familiar concept among property lawyers. The tripartite test for qualifying use, that it must be nec…
