‘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.
Regina (Smith) v Land Registry [2010] EWCA Civ 200; [2010] WLR (D) 72
“Title to land over which a public highway runs could not be acquired by adverse possession.”
WLR Daily, 11th 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.
Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16; [2009] WLR (D) 91
“An offer by a squatter to buy the property from the owners in a letter marked ‘without prejudice’ could not be used as evidence that she had acknowledged the owners’ title to the property so as to defeat her claim to adverse possession.”
WLR Daily, 12th March 2009
Source: www.lawreprots.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“Where an occupier disputing possession proceedings made an offer to the owners to buy the property in a ‘without prejudice’ letter, which was rejected, but later claimed that the title of the property had passed to her because of 12 years’ adverse possession, the owners could not rely on the letter as evidence that she had acknowledged their title to the property so as to defeat her claim.”
The Times, 13th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“Squatters who took over a £22.5m house in Mayfair have been ordered by a court to leave the property.”
BBC News, 27th January 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Queen has won ‘squatter’s rights’ over large tracts of the Severn Estuary in a dispute with a controversial Cardiff businessman.”
BBC News, 20th February 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Where a mortgagor was in exclusive possession of his mortgaged property, and the mortgagee had for more than 12 years failed to protect its security by taking steps to enforce its right to possession or to obtain payment from the mortgagor, such possession was ‘adverse possession’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and ran in the mortgagor’s favour and against the mortgagee; and the latter’s right of action, having accrued more than 12 years before, was extinguished under the Act.”
WLR Daily, 11th February 2008
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 2020