The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse posession. The appellants said that the occupation having been by consent, it could not be counted as adverse.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellants acts had been insufficient to disturb the adverse possession of the respondents.
The court gave guidance on an approach to the mitigation of such disputes by buyers of land: ‘ No doubt those advising on transfers of land will consider what they need to do in future to protect their clients from costly disputes such as this one. Purchasers are not necessarily protected merely because the seller gives an assurance that the dispute with a neighbour has seemingly ‘gone away’. Boundary disputes have a habit of reappearing until finally resolved. The neighbour or the neighbour’s successor in title may, for whatever reason, resuscitate the dispute, unless something is done to prevent them from doing so. It may be that the purchaser will have to consider whether to ask the neighbour to confirm the boundaries and have the necessary deed of confirmation registered at the Land Registry in a manner capable of binding successors in title. That will involve extra costs and delay but the costs may be less than the undoubted cost of litigation of this kind. If the neighbour refuses to be bound by an agreement as to the boundary the purchaser will then know the risks that he is running by completing the purchase. Moreover, the purchaser on acquiring possession might himself be advised to bring matters to a head by himself applying for registration as owner of the land in question.’
Lord Neuberger MR, Arden, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1306, [2011] WLR (D) 331, [2012] 3 EG 88, [2011] 47 EG 105, [2011] 47 EG 105 (CS), [2012] 1 EGLR 1, [2012] 1 P and CR 10, [2012] 2 All ER 320, [2011] NPC 118, [2012] 1 WLR 1240
Bailii, WLRD
Land Registration Act 2002 98(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – J Alston and Sons Ltd v BOCM Pauls Ltd ChD 28-Nov-2008
Hazel Marshall QC discussed the idea of consent in adverse possession claims, saying that mere acquiescence in another’s use of one land is not the same as the grant of permission for that user for the purposes of the stopping time running in favour . .
Cited – Randall v Stevens And Others 25-Jun-1853
A landlord evicted a tenant who had failed to pay any rent for twenty years. Statute provided that a house could not be repossessed simply by exercising a right of entry.
Held: Lord Campbell LC, giving the judgment of the Court of Queen’s . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Allen v England 1862
The court considered a claim for land by adverse possession against the owner on paper. Erle CJ said: ‘It may be taken that the plaintiff had the beneficial occupation for more than twenty years, and if that will give him a title, I will give him . .
Cited – Bligh v Martin ChD 1968
The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land, Land
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.448324
