Adverse Possession

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 29-02-16 11:27
Powell v McFarlane (1977)
Squatter must prove both: factual poss’n and intention to possess – presumption is against squatter
1 of 19
Rains v Buxton (1880)
Fry J: dispossession is where a person comes in and drives out the others from possn; discontinuance is where the person in possession goes out and is followed into possession
2 of 19
Trustees of Grantham v Scouts (2005)
Squatters’ possn of the prop must be without the permission of the pop owner- possession with permission cannot be adverse
3 of 19
BP Props v Buckler (1987)
Demonstrated how court in past used issue of permission to deny an ad possn claim
4 of 19
Long v Tower Hamlets (1996)
Suggests Buckler was a singular case distinguished on its facts- courts may reject line of argument of unilateral granting of licence to occupier
5 of 19
Walliss Cayton (1974)
Use of land which does not contradict the landowner’s intended future use of the prop will amount to an implied licence on part of the landowner – claim failed as use fo land was implied licence from landowner
6 of 19
Buckinghamshire CC v Moran (1991)
Confirmed that s 4 of LA 1980 negates doc of implied licence
7 of 19
Powell v MacFarlane (1979)
Slade J: possession = asserting an approp deg of physical control over the prop
8 of 19
Seddon v Smith (1877)
Fencing off the land will come within definition of possession
9 of 19
Fowley Marine v Gafford (1968)
What constitutes possession is a matter of fact and degree
10 of 19
Tecbuild v Chamberlain (1969)
T show ad poss, the claimant must assert an apporop deg of control over the prop
11 of 19
Ex p Davies (1990)
Disused quarry – C must intend to be in ad poss of the quarry, and must intend to possess the quarry
12 of 19
Pulleyn v Hall Aggregates (1992)
It is irrelevant whether the squatter’s intentin to possess came in the mistaken belief that they already owned the prop in q’n
13 of 19
Beaulane Props v Palmer (2005)
C’s period of ad poss will cease wherever any fact relating to C’s occ has been deliberately concealed
14 of 19
Archangel v LBC (2001)
If C acknowledges the landowner’s title to the prop in writing, they will be unable to pursue their claim
15 of 19
Sanders v Sanders (1881)
Acknowledgment of the landowner’s title is only relevant during period of ad poss, and not after limitation period has expired
16 of 19
Best v Chief Land Registrar (2014)
Fact that a person is committing an offence under s 144 does not mean that they cannot claim title by ad possn under LRA 2002
17 of 19
Ofulue v Bossert (2008)
Ad possn is not in breach of HR law
18 of 19
JA Pye v Graham (2000)
Limitation Act 1980 is not in breach of Art 1 of ECHR because of the length of time and relative ease of defeating ad possn claim
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Fry J: dispossession is where a person comes in and drives out the others from possn; discontinuance is where the person in possession goes out and is followed into possession

Back

Rains v Buxton (1880)

Card 3

Front

Squatters’ possn of the prop must be without the permission of the pop owner- possession with permission cannot be adverse

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Demonstrated how court in past used issue of permission to deny an ad possn claim

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Suggests Buckler was a singular case distinguished on its facts- courts may reject line of argument of unilateral granting of licence to occupier

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Land resources »