Adverse Possession

• Entirely compatible with Human Rights (Pye v UK) on both sides of the equation (i.e. on the loss of land and gain of land)

• Built upon principle of relativity of title.

  • None of us own land, the crown owns the land. We have only title to land: The person with the best title is entitled to immediate possession.

• Reasons for adverse possession:

  • 1) Originally used to settle ownership disputes – didn’t always have title documents, the person in possession of the land would settle ownership disputes.

  • 2) It quietens disputes – it brings them eventually to a close.

  • 3) It helps legitimise reality. It brings legitimacy to the person who is using the land.

  • 4) Encourages the economic use of a scarce resource

    • Sometimes this is clearly true (Lambeth Council has hundreds of dilapidated properties that are not used which people regularly move in to)

    • Sometimes this is clearly not true Pye v Graham it is closer to Land Theft

• Claimant must prove two things:

  • 1) Factual possession – in controlling/managing the land exclusively for themselves (fences, locks, etc)

    • Minimal acts of possession required in rural windswept area: Red House Farms v Catchpole

    • Thorpe v Frank (2019) – Meaning of “factual possession” is context driven. Look for acts that an owner might do. In this case, laying paving slabs was enough.

  • 2) An intention to possess for one’s own benefit (Slade J inPowellv.McFarlane(1979)). NB not an intention to own.

    • If squatter acknowledges registered owner then there cannot be AP: Lambeth v Blackburn

    • Clowes Developmentsv.Walters(2005), in which the claimant’s belief – even if mistaken – that the land was held under a licence meant that they simply could not have the relevant intention to possess.

    • Pye v...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Land Law Notes.