Adverse Possession: Pye v Graham (2002)
- Created by: Lucy.payne
- Created on: 11-01-20 16:36
View mindmap
- Pye v Graham [2002]
- Facts
- Pye was the registered proprieter of development land
- The land in question was adjoined to Graham's farm who had used that land for a long period of time
- Factual Possession
- Land enclosed by hedges with a gate to which only the Grahams had a key
- Intention to Possess
- Pye initially granted a short grazing agreement to the Grahams
- On expiry, Pye refused the request for renewal
- Grahams continued to used the land which went beyond the original agreement
- Pye initially granted a short grazing agreement to the Grahams
- Could the Grahams take the land?
- NOTE
- 1. Graham's willingness to enter into an agreement with Pye
- 2. The absence of an ouster
- Decisions by the Courts
- High Court: Yes
- Court of Appeal: No
- House of Lords: Yes
- No licence was offered and so they were not on the land under licence - therefore AP
- European Court of Human Right (action against the UK): Yes
- AP is consistent with Human Rights (ECHR Art 8 and Protocol 1, Art 1)
- NOTE
- Facts
Comments
No comments have yet been made