Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

land law > adverse possession case law > Flashcards

adverse possession case law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

case to compare with Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

A

Boosey v Davis 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Case example for ‘intention, for the time being, to possess the land’

A

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Fencing insufficient to establish factual possession - fence was to enclose goat, not exclude the world at large.

A

Boosey v Davis 1988

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

which case established enclosure as unnecessary to establish factual possession

A

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001

A

case example for ‘intention, for the time being, to possess the land.’
Man intended to stay in council flat until he was evicted = sufficient to establish intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

case to compare with boosey v Davis 1988

A

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

A

Established, when considering whether someone has factual possession, that it is the effect of the adverse possessors actions that is important, rather than their subjective motivation.
lady enclosing land to keep dogs safe while she exercised.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case regarding a boundary dispute which reflects courts narrow interpretation of exceptions to principles of LRA’02 regarding the ability for an adverse possessor to gain a stronger title despite counter notice being served.

A

Dowse v City of Bradford 2020

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Dowse v City of Bradford 2020

A

Case regarding a boundary dispute which reflects courts narrow interpretation of exceptions to principles of LRA’02 regarding the ability for an adverse possessor to gain a stronger title despite counter notice being served.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

__?__ v City of Bradford 2020

A

Dowse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

dowse v __?__

A

City of Bradford 2020

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

__?__ v greenmanor 2012

A

Pilford

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

A

established fencing as unnecessary to show sufficient physical control and custody in some instances, depending on the nature of the land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

__?__ v minchinton 1997

A

Hounslow LBC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hounslow v Minchinton __?__

A

1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

case clarifying factual possession need not be inconsistent with future intended use by paper owner for it to be adverse

A

Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Leigh v Jack 1879

A

case which held, in order for possession to be adverse, it should be inconsistent with future intended use by true owner.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

case which held, in order for possession to be adverse, it should be inconsistent with future intended use by true owner.

A

Leigh v Jack 1879

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

which case + by which judge directly rejected principle set in Leigh v Jack 1879

A

J A Pye (Oxford) v Graham 2003
Lord Browne-Wilkinson ‘heretical and wrong’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

case based on similar facts as Pye v Graham that had a different outcome.

A

Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

A

case with similar facts to Pye v Graham in which Deputy Judge of the High Court held the old laws on AP to be incompatible with ECHR.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

why might Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer have had a different outcome to Pye v Graham?

A

Pye judgement came before HRA enacted the ECHR into English law, Beaulane came after.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How did courts achieve compatibility between UK and EU law in Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

A

the court reinterpreted statutory provisions of the limitation act 1980 in accordance with S.3 of the HRA ‘98,
allowing the land owner to retain title- reviving the principle set in Leigh v Jack 1879.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

why was Beaulane Property Ltd deemed a violation of art 1 provision 1 ECHR by court?(5)

A

due to the facts of the case meaning that
- expropriation of land
-wanted by its owner for future use
-without compensation
would be
- disproportionate
- not be in the public interest and so it would not advance any legitimate aims of the statutory provisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

__?___ v Palmer 2005

A

Beaulane Property Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Beaulane property Ltd v __?__

A

Palmer 2005

26
Q

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain 1969

A

factual possession cannot be presumed from “mere trivial acts of trespass”

27
Q

Tecbild Ltd v __?__

A

Chamberlain 1969

28
Q

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain ?

A

1969

29
Q

__?__ v Chamberlain ?

A

Tecbild Ltd
1969

30
Q

case establishing: possession cannot be presumed from “mere trivial acts of trespass”

A

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain 1969

31
Q

Powell v Mcfarlane 1977 per slade j on physical control

A

‘an appropriate degree of physical control’

32
Q

which scholars identified areas to establish factual possession and animus possidendi

A

Megarry and Wade

33
Q

? and wade

A

megarry

34
Q

Case which held, when determining if the degree of control over land is sufficient, it is the EFFECT of the adverse possessors actions, rather than the SUBJECTIVE MOTIVATION, that is important. i.e., the effect was exclusion of the world at large.

A

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

35
Q

megarry and wade 4 areas to establish factual possession

A
  1. physical control
  2. singular possession
  3. exclusive possession
  4. behaving as a true owner might
36
Q

Erection of fencing as an appropriate degree of physical control

A

George Wimpey & Co Ltd v Sohn 1967

37
Q

padlock on gate as an appropriate degree of physical control

A

Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990

38
Q

slade j on ‘behaving as a true owner might’

A

‘ask has the alleged possessor …
been dealing with the land in question
as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it
and no-one else has done so’

39
Q

George Wimpey & Co Ltd v Sohn ?

A

1967

40
Q

section 32 limitation act clause

A

AP must not be deliberately concealed, must be the sort the paper owner, with reasonable diligence, could discover.

41
Q

factual possession must be adverse but …. (per Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990)

A

need not be inconsistent with future intended use by paper owner for it to be adverse.

42
Q

‘enclosure is the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession’
case and judge

A

seddon v smith 1877
per lfl Cockburn

43
Q

seddon v ?

A

smith 1877

44
Q

? v smith 1877

A

seddon

45
Q

seddon v smith ?

A

1877

46
Q

quote from Seddon v Smith 1877, per ?

A

‘enclosure is the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession’ per lfl Cockburn

47
Q

Lfl Cockburn, Seddon v Smith 1877 - ‘enclosure is … _____?____’

A

the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession

48
Q

case to compare with seddon v smith? (2)

A

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012 - enclosure not always necessary depending on nature of land
Boosey v Davis 1988 - enclosure not enough

49
Q

QUOTE: Pilford v Greenmanor 2012 , on why enclosure unnecessary

A

‘acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control bearing in mind the nature of the land.’

50
Q

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012
‘acts were sufficient to _________
_________’

A

amount to physical custody and control bearing in mind the nature of the land

51
Q

‘________________ bearing in mind the nature of the land’ - Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

A

acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control

52
Q

‘acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control _____________’ - Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

A

bearing in mind the nature of the land.

53
Q

which case established enclosure as unnecessary to establish factual possession

A

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

54
Q

which case could you compare with boosey v Davis 1988 other than Hounslow LBC

A

Seddon v Smith 1877
enclosure was not enough in boosey, despite being considered by lfl Cockburn as ‘strongest possible evidence of adverse possession’

55
Q

Factual possession is an ? and depends on __?__

A

Act
Circumstances

56
Q

case showing that factual possession is an act and depends on circumstances

A

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

57
Q

Powell v McFarlane, per Slade J definition of ‘intent to possess’ (5)

A

-‘the intention, in ones own name and on ones own behalf,
-to exclude the world at large,
-including the owner with the paper title,
-so far as is reasonably practicable
-and so far as the process of laws will allow.’

58
Q

intention to possess quote per Hoffman J in Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990 (3)

A

-‘not an intention to own
-or even to acquire ownership,
-but an intention to possess.’

59
Q

‘not an intention to own
or even to acquire ownership,
but an intention to possess.’ - CC v Moran, per ?

A

Hoffman J

60
Q

Megarry and Wade 5 parts of intention to possess

A
  • intention to possess, not to dispossess
  • intention to exclude the world, at large
  • intention to possess, not to own
  • intention for the time being, to possess the land for own benefit
  • intention must be manifested clearly
61
Q

how is an intention to possess generally deciphered?

A

deduced from the acts making up factual possession

62
Q

Case example for ‘intention for the time being to possess the land’

A

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001

land law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions