Land Law Adverse possession PDF

Preview

Summary

Land Law Tutorial 17 on Adverse Possession....

Description

Land- Tutorial Adverse Possession 1. Asher v Whitlock a. Squatter on unregistered land built a cottage which housed himself, his wife

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

and their daughter. When he died, he left the land upon which the cottage was built to his widow until she remarried, then his daughter. His daughter did not take possession when Wife remarried. Both died. The court held, the daughter’s descendants title originated before that of the wife’s husband, and so the descendant’s title took priority. b. Possession is good title against all except paper owner Relativity of Titlea. Ownership comes from possession of a thing. b. No concept of absolute title (for unregistered title) c. All titles are relative- Asher v Whitlock d. Example: i. A is paper owner ii. B dispossess A iii. C dispossess B iv. Relative to A, B’s title is weak v. Relative to C, B’s title is strong Effect of Limitation Act 1980- s15 and s17 a. s15- Time limit for actions to recover land- 12 years b. s17- extinction of title of land after expiration of 12 years J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Grahama. For Factual Possession, need: i. An act + intention + Adverse possession to possess the land b. Claimant argue that the UK law that allowed him to lose land by virtue of 12 years occupation by a squatter, interfered with its rights to ownership. c. Court Held, UK law on adverse possession did comply with the convention. The limitation period of 12 years for actions of recovery of land pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest. Purbrick v Hackney London Borough Council a. The claimant appealed against a decision refusing him title by adverse possession, to a building of which the local authority was the registered proprietor. b. Claimant put corrugated iron across the doorway and chained it in place using two padlocks. He installed a property door and roof and reinstated the first floor. c. Court held, C had been in possession of the building for 4 year period. What C actually did was enough to constitute physical possession. d. C had done enough to maintain possession by being exclusive in occupation and changing the locks, thus restricting entrance to the world. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc. a. Wall sat between land owned by Prudential and land owned by Waterloo. b. Waterloo treated the wall as their own- they cleaned it, repaired it, maintained it and granted covenants relating to the wall. c. Court held, waterloos conduct in respect of the wall demonstrated the necessary intention to possess the wall. They had acquired adverse possession of the whole wall. Powell v McFarlanea. A person who enters land as a trespasser and later seeks to show that he had dispossessed the owner must produce compelling evidence an animis

possidendi (intention to possess something for the time being) and that he made it clear to the world. b. A person claiming adverse possession must show factual possession which was simple and conclusive, and that he had been dealing with the land in the manner in which the owner might have been to do so. 8. Smart v Lambeth London Borough Council-

a....