Squatting Flashcards
Buckinghamshire CC v Moran
This case highlighted the requirements necessary to establish adverse possession. The adverse possessor must be in factual possession of the land and must possess the land with the intent to possess.
Pye v Graham
This case confirm the requirements for adverse possession set out in Buckinghamshire. These applied to both registered and unregistered land. After the Ds grazing license expired, they continued to farm the land for over 12 years, during which time the land was accessed through a padlocked gate. The paper owner did not have a key. The Ds had shown factual possession of the land since they had used the land as their own, and in a way which would be normal for an owner of that land to use it and contradicts the paper owners’ wishes.
Powell v McFarlane
The squatter must demonstrate a sufficient degree of physical control over the land in question. What is required is evidence that the squatter has been able to deal with the land as in occupying owner might be expected to deal with it and that no one else has done so. Factual possession
George Wimpey v Sohn
Enclosing the land by the erection of fences was considered a sufficient degree of physical control to find factual possession.
Tecbuild v Chamberlain
The claimants sought to establish a sufficient physical control of the land by establishing that their children played there and that their horses were tethered and exercised there. Such acts were deemed to be ‘mere trivial acts of trespass’ and thus insufficient to establish factual possession of the land.
Note: courts will assess all evidence and multiple trivial acts may amount to factual possession. Look out for this in a problem question and determine whether the acts are ALL trivial.
Hounslow v Minchinton
The adverse possessor had fenced part of the disputed land so as to prevent her dogs from escaping when she exercised them there. Although this was the motivation, the effect of her actions to keep out the whole world from the land. It was the objective effective action rather than her subjective motivation which, taken into account of other things, deemed her to have sufficient physical control of the land.
Smith v Lawson
Possession with permission of the paper owner cannot constitute adverse possession.
Buckinghamshire (adverse)
Possession need not be inconsistent with future intended use of the land by the paper owner to be adverse. The defendant’s knowledge alone cannot prevent the possession from being adverse. Here the defendant possess the claimant’s land but only with the intention to do so until such time as the claimant went ahead with plans to build a bypass over it.
Wallis’s Cayton Bay
Lord Denning sought to use the argument of implied license identified in Leigh v Jack. Where the use of the land was not inconsistent with the intended future use of the paper owner, then there was, by implication, permission from the paper owner to occupy the land until he wanted to use it for himself. Thus possession would not be adverse. This was rejected by the Limitation Act 1980 and was revived briefly in Beaulane Properties v Palmer.
Hughes v Cork
The squatter need not have intent to dispossess but only needs to intend to possess. Thus he can adversely possess property without knowing it.
Lambeth LBC v Blackburn
The squatter does not need to have an intention to own the disputed land; merely an intention to possess it for as long as he can for his own benefit. So where the squatters intention to stay until evicted, intention to possess was found. This was also stated by Lord Hoffman in Buckinghamshire.
Permission from the paper owner
If any adverse possessor believes that they have this, they will not succeed in any claim for adverse possession.
Williams v Usherwood
The 12 years for adverse possession maybe completed by more than one successive adverse possessor. However there must not be a break in the adverse possession. A successful recovery of the land would stop the clock running and any later adverse possession will start the clock again from the beginning.
Zarb v Perry
Retaking a possession could be achieved in a short time. It was held that possession had not been resumed by the Zarbs. They had taken preparatory steps but had not effectively excluded the Parrys.
Best v Chief land registrar
The general position is that you can’t benefit from a criminal offense. This case tested this. CA said that the the possessor can still be a registered proprietor as they felt Parliament couldn’t have meant for the implication of LASPOA on LRA. Sales LJ said that
