The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant’s predecessor in title.
Held: With regard to any particular action the relevant time, and the only relevant time, for consideration of adverse possession is that which has expired before such action is brought. A letter and separate action could not found a claim. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Civ 281, [2001] 1 WLR 1321
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mount Carmel Investments Limited v Peter Thurlow Limited CA 1988
The court considered a defence to an assertion of adverse possession, that the plaintiff had given notice of his intention to recover the land: ‘no one, either lawyer or non-lawyer, would think that a householder ceases to be in possession of his . .
Cited – St Marylebone Property Co Ltd v Fairweather HL 16-Apr-1962
To defeat a defence of adverse possession, the plaintiff must succeed in an action which itself had been commenced within the twelve year period. A squatter does not succeed to the title that he has disturbed: by sufficiently long adverse possession . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Limitation
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135672
