Adverse Possession Flashcards
Murphy v Murphy (AP means)
AP means possession of the land which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner with an intention to exclude all other’s from its ude and enjoyment
Pye v UK
ECHR held AP strikes the right balance between protecting one’s enjoyment of property (Protocol 1 of ECH R) and the public interest
Murphy v Murphy (w/o)
AP may occur without any party knowing it, time begins to run on dispossession and possession
Dundalk UDC V Conway
confirms one cannot discontinue use and enjoyment of land that is incapable of being used or enjoyed - wasteland
Feehan v Leamy
looking over fence into land deemed sufficient to maintain possession
Mulhern v Brady
getting auctioneer, telling squatter he was trespassing and erecting a sign deemed sufficient act of possession
Dooley v Flaherty
despite man living in derelict house for over 12 years undisturbed, owners actions of fixing roof and insuring house sufficient to retain possession
Dunne v Iarnoid Eireann
held factual possession means it must be singular and conclusive possession
Thorpe v Frank
repaving of a forecourt considered a sufficient act of possession
Buckinghamshire v Moran
possession is never adverse if it is enjoyed under lawful title
Battle v Pinemeadow
held if a landowner tells a squatter they are unaware if their rights this does not constitute permission
Doyle v O’Neill
any permission to be on land or acknowledgement of landowner’s title will negate AP claim
Powell v McFarlane
intention in one’s own name and one’s own behalf to exclude all others from the land
Murphy v Murphy
possessor must show they had intention to exclude the true owner and all other persons form the land
Doyle v O’Neill
storage of materials on a derelict site were not sufficient enough acts to leave no doubt in the owner’s mind possession adverse to his title was occurring
Hamilton v ACC Loan Management
Peart J held H was entitled to lands by AP as he had farmed the lands as if it was his own in a permanent and exclusive manner for the required period
Leigh v Jack
use by a squatter of a strip of land to store materials in which he fenced off was deemed not to be sufficient acts as it was not inconsistent with the intention of the owner to use the land in the future for a highway
Leigh principle
acts of a squatter which do not interfere with and are consistent with the owner’s future intended use of the property do not amount to dispossession
Pye v UK
held the suggestion possession is based on the intention of the true owner is heretical and wrong
Durack Manufacturing v Considine
Barron J rejected Leigh stating if a squatter knows of future intention this may indicate squatter does not have requisite animus possidendi but this is an inference only
Dunne v Iarnoid Eireann
Clarke J preferred Durack reasoning
Tichbourne v Weir (Eng)
a dispossessed tenant is said to be in a position to surrender his lease to a landlord thereby bringing the lease to an end and resulting in a right of possession on the part of the landlord that could be enforced against the adverse possessor
Perry v Woodfarm Homes
rejected English approach and held it is not possible for a squatter of a leasehold property to acquire it, all that is acquired is a right to remain in possession for the remainder of the term
