Adverse Possession Flashcards
Statute of Limitations Act
1957
No action to recover land brought not by a state body after the expiration of 12 years
s13(2)
State solicitor is not a state body
O’Hagan v Grogan
Could leave no doubt in the mind of a landowner that occupation adverse to his title was taking place
Doyle v O’Neill
Doyle v O’Neill
Could leave no doubt in the mind of a landowner that occupation adverse to his title was taking place
Adverse possession starts
when the adverse possessor occupies
the title extinguished can be
no greater than the title of the paper owner
Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control
Powel v McFarlane
Powel v McFarlane
Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control
minimal acts continue possession
Dunne v Iarnród Éireann 2007
Dunne v Iarnród Éireann 2007
minimal acts continue possession
Dunne v Iarnród Éireann 2007 judge
Clarke J
once the title is extinguished, no subsequent act of possession can be re-instated
Dunne v Iarnród Éireann 2007
sporadic visits to the property where not enough for adverse possession
Dunne v Iarnród Éireann 2007
Back garden - not sporadic visits
Byrne v Dublin City Council 2018
if true owner does nothing to interrupt possession title is extinguished
Hamilton v ACC Loan Management 2018
Paper owner walked the land
Brown v Fahey
visited the property several times a year
Mulhern v Brady
brought auctioneer to the property
Moley v Fee
serving a letter but never entering the property is not sufficient to disturb period of adverse possession
Mahon v O’Reilly
Permitted to graze cattle
Brown v Fahey 1975
possession with consent/ license of the owner
Hughes v Griffin
permission to live in the house - implied license
A v C 2007
Animus possidendi is possession inconsistent with the title and the inconsistency involves an intention to exclude
Murphy v Murphy 1980
Murphy v Murphy 1980
Animus possidendi is possession inconsistent with the title and the inconsistency involves an intention to exclude
Feehan v Leamy 2000 judge
Finnegan J
‘an intention to preclude the true owner and all other persons from enjoyment of the estate’
Feehan v Leamy 2000
Feehan v Leamy 2000
an intention to preclude the true owner and all other persons from enjoyment of the estate’
found there was no intention to exclude
Dundalk UDC v Coleman
there must be clear and affirmative evidence that the trespasser had intention to possess and made such intention clear to the world
Powell v McFarlane 1979
Powell v McFarlane 1979
there must be clear and affirmative evidence that the trespasser had intention to possess and made such intention clear to the world
fence needs to exclude all others
Tracey Enterprises McAdam Ltd v Dury 2006
occasional visitors- no intention to exclude
Griffen v Bleithin 1999
acts must be adverse to the owners future use
Leigh v Jack
Cork Corp v Lynch
Future use taken into account when considering animus possidendi
Durack Manufacturing v Considine
Defences
Acknowledgement
Fraud
Disability
Acknowledgement
Edington v Clarke
in comparison to..
Ofulue v Bassert (without prejudice basis)
Fraud
s71(1) 1957 Act
Disability
s49 1957 Act
