JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham summary PDF

Preview

Summary

details on law information in detailed, for academic year 2020 2021...

Description

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham, 2002 WL 1310842 (2002)

For educational use only

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration

Court House of Lords Judgment Date 4 July 2002 Where Reported [2002] UKHL 30 [2003] 1 A.C. 419 [2002] 3 W.L.R. 221 [2002] 3 All E.R. 865 [2002] 7 WLUK 146 [2002] H.R.L.R. 34 [2003] 1 P. & C.R. 10 [2002] 28 E.G. 129 (C.S.) [2002] N.P.C. 92 [2002] 2 P. & C.R. DG22 Times, July 5, 2002 Independent, July 9, 2002 [2002] C.L.Y. 3805 Judgment

Subject Real property

Keywords Adverse possession; Agricultural land; Intention; Squatters Judge Lord Bingham of Cornhill; Lord Mackay of Clashfern; Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Lord Hope of Craighead; Lord Hutton © 2021 Thomson Reuters.

1

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham, 2002 WL 1310842 (2002)

Counsel For J: Jonathan Gaunt Q.C., David Pannick Q.C. and Jonathan Small. For G: Kim Lewison Q.C., Martin Dray and Jane Mulcahy. Solicitor For J: Darbys (Oxford). For G: Burges Salmon (Bristol).

Case Digest Summary Respondents sold farm but retained some land with development potential - After 1984 respondents did nothing to land which was farmed by appellants with rest of their land Appellants acquired title by adverse possession - Adverse possession did not require squatter to act adversely to paper title owner in order to dispossess him - Appellants had factual possession of land for requisite 12-year period and intention to possess - Necessary intention was intention to possess not to own and to exclude paper owner so far as reasonably possible - Limitation Act 1980 s 15, sched 1 para 1. Abstract A squatter, G, appealed against a ruling ([2001] EWCA Civ 117, [2001] Ch. 804) granting possession of 25 hectares of agricultural land to J, the freehold owner of the land. J had permitted G to occupy the land for grazing purposes by means of a written agreement in 1983. The agreement expired in December 1983. J declined to renew it and requested that G vacate the land. Although permitted to take a cut of hay in 1984, G’s continued occupation and use of the land thereafter lacked permission. At first instance the judge had held that from 1984 G had been in factual possession with the necessary intention to possess the land with the effect that J’s title had been extinguished.

Held, allowing the appeal, that the question to be posed was whether the squatter had dispossessed the paper owner of the land by ordinary possession of the land for the relevant period in the absence of consent from the owner. In order to be in possession of land the squatter had to exercise the necessary degree of physical custody and control and to show an intention to possess the land. The squatter had to intend to exclude the world at large, including the paper title owner so far as was reasonably practicable. The requisite degree of physical control was dependent, inter alia, on the nature of the land and the manner of its usage. It was also necessary to demonstrate that the squatter had been treating the land in the manner of an occupying owner and that no other individual had done so. It was immaterial that the squatter would have been willing to pay to occupy the land if requested to do so. Furthermore, it was not necessary to © 2021 Thomson Reuters.

2

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham, 2002 WL 1310842 (2002)

demonstrate an intention to own or acquire ownership of the land. In the instant case, the judge had been correct to conclude that G had established possessory title to the land, Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P. & C.R. 452, [1977] 3 WLUK 188 and Buckinghamshire CC v Moran [1990] Ch. 623, [1989] 2 WLUK 155 applied and Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex. D. 264, [1879] 12 WLUK 40 overruled.

© 2021 Thomson Reuters.

3...