The paper owner sought possession of land. The defendant said he had acquired a possessory title. The land was registered.
Held: The claimant’s human rights under article 1 were engaged. To be justifiable, the interference in that right had to be ‘in the public interest’. The limitation rules were enacted by the State for public purposes, to achieve certainty and to prevent the court having to adjudicate on stale claims. In land claims the rules had wider purposes than to regulate as between owner and trespasser. The effect on land claims was to deprive the land owner of his land. The state had a wide margin. When the Land Registration system was enacted the main considerations included matters such as adjustment of boundaries. However ‘the expropriation of registered land withouty compensation in the circumstances of this case did not advance any of the legitimate aims of the statutory provisions and was disproportionate’ The claimant’s loss of his land under section 75 of the 1925 Act was disproportionate.
Nicholas Strauss QC
Times 13-Apr-2005, (2005) 14 EGCS 129,  EWHC 817 (Ch),  Ch 79
European Convention on Human Rights 81, Land Registration Act 1925 75
England and Wales
Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
No longer correct – Ofulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council v Buchanan Admn 7-Nov-2007
The defendant estate agent was prosecuted for misdescribing the ability of his client to convey good title to the land offered. The seller did not initially have a registered possessory title to part of the land.
Held: The agent’s appeal . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.224111