Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Adverse possession: Land law, If they do find grounds for objection, then…

- - - - Key question? is squatter/trespasser in possession of the land without the permission of the landowner?
        HOL in Pye - relied on McFarlane - "FP signifies an appropriate degree of physical control"
        
        (a) What constitutes FP is determined by the nature and character of the land
        
        Its value, suitable mode of using it, and normal conduct of an owner of that type of land
        
        Dyer v Terry
        
        Doesn't matter if the acts of possession serve a dual purpose, as long as they give CUSTODY AND CONTROL to the claimant for his/her own benefit.
        
        Hounslow v Mitchinton
        
        (b) FP must be exclusive
        
        Squatter must possess the land to an exclusion of the paper owner and any other person enjoying rights over the land
        
        (c) Possession must be open
        
        Must not be concealed from true owner, although doesn't have to be obvious to them.
        
        (d) Possession must be adverse
        
        Possession must be without the permission of the true owner but owner doesn't need to be aware they've lost possession or be inconvenienced by the loss of possession.
        
        Anne v Matthews
        
        Wallace v BP LTD - if court implies license then possession will not be adverse.
        
        (e) Enclosure of land as evidence of physical control
        
        Fencing, hedges, or any way to exclude original owner are examples of this, BUT, this is not necessary (Thorpe v Frank).
        
        Pye - exclusive physical control of the land from which pye was excluded
        
        Buckingham v Moran - establish FP by using land as his own maintaining hedging and fences as well as installing new gate lock - all evidence of FP
    - - Powell v McFarlane - claimant isn't required to prove he wanted to acquire land, rather just that he wanted to exclude all others if he could.
      - Where FP is proved, intention to possess can be assumed (Buckingham + Pye)
      - BUT, clients mistaken belief of held license would show lack of intent (Cloves Development v Walters)
- - - - If one's registered even without at least 10 years AP, then Registrar can be amended (Baxter v Mannion)
    - - Options they can take:
        
        Consent -
        
        Object to application under s73(1) LRA 2002 - on grounds that the AP cant make this application because: IF NONE PROVED THEN AP BECOMES REGISTERED OWNER (S73(5) & (6) LRA 2002
        
        b) Land is subject to possession order or there are possession proceedings on way
        
        c) existing proprietor suffers from a mental disability
        
        a) claimant cant demonstrate 10 yrs at least
        
        Send a counter offer to the Registrar requiring them to deal with the application under Sch 6 para 5
        
        With this, claimant can only become new proprietor if 1/3 conditions is satisfied
        
        2) Applicant for some other reason is entitled to be registered as proprietor
        
        3) application relates to a boundary dispute and AP reasonably believed that the land he possessed belongs to him (Sch 6 para 5(4))
        
        b) the exact line of boundary between the two hasn't been determined under rules from s60
        
        c) for last 10 yrs, the applicant reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to them.
        
        defining reasonable belief: Chowdrey case
        
        a) land that is being disputed is adjacent to the land belonging to the applicant
        
        d) estate was registered more than one yr prior to the date of the application
        
        1) it would be unconscionable as a result of an estoppel for the registered proprietor to dispossess the AP