The defendant occupied a house belonging to the claimant Council as a squatter. He undertook various improvements, on occasion assisted by the Council. There were then protracted and sporadic negotiations for a lease between 1982 and 1988 but no lease was agreed. Nothing then happened for three years. There was then some occasional contact but in 2000 the Council took possession proceedings and the defendant counterclaimed for adverse possession.
Held: There was no adverse possession because there was permission to occupy the property during the pendency of the negotiations for the lease. Apart from the overt acts of assistance given by the Council, the continuation of negotiations for the lease while the defendant was in possession constituted a tacit acceptance by the Council of that possession. Kim Lewison QC added: ‘Where a person is in possession of land pending negotiation for the grant of an interest in land, it is a natural inference to draw that the owner permits him to remain there at least until the negotiations have irretrievably broken down.’
and: ‘In my judgment, the Council did tacitly or impliedly give Mr Nicholson permission to continue to occupy the lodge at least during the pendency of the negotiations for a lease.’ In his view the licence probably did not end until a later stage: ‘I find therefore that from 1984 at the latest, when the Council installed the new drain and provided the Elsan closet, until at least the middle of 1988, when negotiations ground to a halt, Mr Nicholson’s possession was with the Council’s permission and hence was not adverse possession. Indeed I think that his possession would have continued to be permissive until the Council told him that it was not. Mr Grattan’s efforts to ‘rationalise (not terminate)’ Mr Nicholson’s occupation confirms the permissive nature of it.’
Judges:
Kim Lewison QC
Citations:
Unreported, 22 February 2002
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Totton and Eling Town Council v Caunter and Another ChD 11-Jun-2008
The council appealed against an award by the adjudicator of title by adverse possession in favour of the respondents.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On any sensible analysis from the Council’s perspective, the Caunters were entitled to remain in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.517495