Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Adverse Possession - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Trustees of Grantham Christian Fellowship v Scouts Association [2005]:
        
        TI owner allowed scouts to occupy on a plot of land between 1959 to 2002. The licence was never revoked or expired. Scouts claimed for adverse possession but failed as their presence was with the permission of the TI
      - Allen v Matthews [2007]:
        
        Licence was granted to use the property. But in 1987 Matthews and another used it more extensively. His friend left but Matthew remained until 1998 and let to his son. AP can be arise even when there's no permission to use as the actual use was of different nature.
        
        Also its not required for adverse possession to be by one person for the entire period if the period is continuous - period for possession may be aggregated
      - Smith [Personal Representative of Hugh Smith (Deceased)] & Ors v Molyneaux [2016]:
        
        The understanding that the AP was allowed to stay in the property until it was required for the development was sufficient to negate factual possession. Permission can be unilateral and need not acknowledged by the occupier
- - - - Powell v McFarlane [1979]:
        
        Its necessary to show an intention by being sufficiently clear to the owner, that the person present on the land was more than a mere persistent trespasser.
      - Buckinghamsire CC v Moran [1990]:
        
        The relevant intention is the intention to possess the land for the time being to the exclusion of all others. It does not necesarily mean an intention ot acuqire ownership
      - Clowes Development v Walters [2006]:
        
        There's a difference between using the property as the AP believed that he had permission to do so. And using the property because the AP had an intention other to possess - an intention exclude others. Adverse possession is the latter
    - - Fencing - Inglewood v Baker [2006]:
        
        the purpose of the fence was to keep sheep in, otherwise he would not have put up the fence
        
        There's no intention to possess the land
        
        London Borough of Hounslow v Minchinton [1997]:
        
        Even though the fence was to keep dogs in, court held that motive is irrelevant. Fact was that the AP intended to allow their dogs to make full use of what they have regarded to be their land
      - Lock/Gates - Pye v Graham [2002]:
        
        where title owner was excluded by hedges that surrounded the land and the key to padlocked road gate was with the AP. Sufficient to prove intention for control
        
        London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn [2006]:
        
        Where the title owner was excluded by hedges which surrounded the land and the key to padlocked road gate and used his own lock
        
        Its enough to show intention to asset ownership against the world
      - Age - Powell v McFarlane [1979]:
        
        AP was only 14. Hardly to establish an intention to possess
        
        Trivial acts - Powell v McFarlane:
        
        In the former, using the land as playground was considered to be trivial
        
        [using the land for grazing is insufficient]
  - - - Pre LRA 2002:
        
        Factual possession and intention to possess the land for 12 years under S.15 Limitation Act 1980.
        
        If proven then title owner will be defeated. AP can make an application to the Land Registry to be registered as owner
        
        Post LRA 2002:
        
        AP in possession for 10 years or more - application to be a registered owner under Schedule 6 Para 1 LRA 2002.
        
        Title owner has 85 business days to object
    - - Failure of Registration:
        
        Title owner is given 2 years to evict AP unless exceptions under Schedule 6 para 5 LRA 2002 applies
        
        (1) Unconscionable to dispose AP because of estoppel and circumstances are such that AP should be registered as proprietor
        
        (2) AP is legally entitled to the land and to become proprietor
        
        (3) Boundary dispute for at least years and AP reasonably believed that the disputed land was his
      - Successful Registration:
        
        AP can be registered immediately. But TI may be reinstated if there's a mistake. See Schedule 4 LRA 2002
        
        Baxter v Mannion [2011]:
        
        Facts: D was the TI and C the AP. D was using the land and wanted to be registered as owner. Registry issued form to D but he didn't return on time. Land was registered under C's name. D wanted to rectify the registration citing mistake.
        
        Held: CA allowed rectification. D cannot lose his land for the want of a form