‘Daniel Dovar considers the decision in Brown v Ridley [2024] UKUT 14 (LC) and the crucial nature of the timing of an application for adverse possession under paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th May 2023
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In Brown v Ridley [2024] UKUT 14 (LC) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered whether the 10-year period of reasonable belief required for adverse possession applications must end on the date of the application (or, alternatively, whether it may be any 10 years within the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application).’
St Philips Barristers, 16th April 2024
Source: st-philips.com
‘Catherine Craven and Jane Goodier round up the latest housing law cases and court decisions of interest to housing associations and local authorities.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2023
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Two applicants have been told they cannot claim adverse possession of council-owned land which is not adjacent to their own.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Gary Cowen QC considers a recent decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Land Registration) on adverse possession claims to unregistered land based on the collection of rent for a period of twelve years.’
Falcon Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘According to the statistics held by HM Land Registry, some 15% of land in England and Wales is unregistered. In particular, much of the land owned by the Crown, the aristocracy and the Church has not been registered, because there has been no change in ownership of the land since compulsory registration on sale of land was introduced.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd March 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has upheld the title of the descendants of the original grantor to a family burial vault in a closed church.’
Law and Religion UK, 17th June 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘The Court of Appeal decision in Rashid v Nasrullah is an important one in relation to adverse
possession of registered land in two respects. The Court held, declining to follow its previous
decision in Parshall v Bryans [2013] EWCA Civ 240, that a registered proprietor can be in
adverse possession of registered land. It also held that, where registered land is transferred by
a forged transfer to a fraudster who is registered as proprietor, the effect of s.69 of the Land
Registration Act 1925 was that, although the fraudster acquired the legal estate he held it on
trust for the real owner.’
New Square Chambers, 6th December 2018
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A couple who cut a grass verge outside their wealthy neighbour’s home for 12 years have been given the land by a judge in a “squatters’ rights” ruling following a lengthy court battle.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th May 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘We like being in control. As lawyers, we want to be in control. What is more, sometimes the law requires our clients to be in control. And the law determines if a person is truly in control. In the legal context instances where control may be an issue include the control of companies and the control of vehicles. In the field of property, the concept of control rears its head in connection with adverse possession.’
Falcon Chambers, March 2016
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘The Court of Appeal considered the clash of s.144 LASPO and the rules on adverse possession, on appeal from the Administrative Court. Our report on the Admin Court judgment is here, and, to be honest, I’m not sure that the Court of Appeal adds much to that judgment. Much the same arguments were rehearsed and much the same conclusion is reached.’
NearlyLegal, 19th February 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Regina (Best) v Chief Land Registrar [2014] EWHC 1370 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 211
‘The criminalisation of people who were trespassers through living in a relevant residential building by pursuant to section 144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 had not prevented time running for applications for registration of title by adverse possession.’
WLR Daily, 7th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Way back when s.144 LASPO 2012 was first proposed, I noted that one of the unaddressed questions (indeed a question that nobody even thought to consider) was how s.144 would interact with statute and case law on adverse possession.’
NearlyLegal, 8th May 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Swan Housing Association Ltd v Gill: [2012] EWHC 3129 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 325
“A tenant facing anti-social behaviour injunction proceedings was not prevented from applying to register his possessory title with the land registry by virtue of paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 7th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Yeates and another v Line and another [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 319
“An oral compromise agreement was not void by virtue of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 merely because it had a disposing effect. The compromise agreement was not an agreement for ‘the sale or other disposition of an interest in land’ within the meaning of section 2(1), so that despite being oral it was a valid contract.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Zarb and another v Parry and another: [2011] EWCA Civ 1306; [2011] WLR (D) 331
“To defeat a claim to title to land by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 on the basis of an interruption which stopped time running, the paper title owner was required to show possession to the exclusion of the person claiming adverse possession.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Diep) v Chief Land Registrar [2010] WLR (D) 215
“The policy of the Land Registry in dealing with applications for registration of title to unregistered land based on adverse possession, as embodied in Land Registry Practice Guidance 5 at 6.4, was neither unlawful nor irrational.”
WLR Daily, 6th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Baxter v Mannion [2010] EWHC 573 (Ch); [2010] WLR (D) 82
“There was no good reason to confine the jurisdiction of the registrar under para 5(a) of Sch 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to the correction of procedural mistakes. If any statutory condition which was a prerequisite for registration was shown not to have been satisfied, there was a mistake in the register which the registrar had power to correct.”
WLR Daily, 19th March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024