Land Law Adverse Possession
Adverse Possession ans: The opportunity to acquire a better title to land than the person who "legally"
owns it and to whom it was once formally conveyed with all of the solemnity of a deed or registered
disposition - Hounslow v Michinton
Land Registration Act 2002 ans: Establishes a new regime for AP for registered land - registered land
compromises of 85% of all titles
J A Pye v Graham ans: Laid out the rules that establish when a claim of AP might succeed factually and
apply equally registered and unregistered title
If alleged adverse possessor once occupied the land with the permission of the paper owner, any
continued possession after that permission has ended (lease or license has ended but the claimant stays
in possession) may be sufficient to support a claim of AP if the intention to possess is shown
How is AP Established?/ When will possession of a trespasser be sufficient to establish a claim? ans:
Rules and principles can be see in the J A Pye case
Along with the decision of Buckinghamshire CC v Moran, it shows that AP can be established by
demonstrating the required degree of exclusive physical possession of the and, coupled with an
intention to possess the land to exclusion of all others, including the paper owner with the intention to
possess
It is important that person intends to possess the land and put it to his own use, whether or not he also
knows that some other persons had a claim or right to the land
Claimant is not required to prove that he believed that the land was his, or wanted to acquire it, but that
he meant to exclude all others if he could - CRUCIAL
Focus of intention is on the claimant, not the land owner - landowner's state of mind is irrelevant
Clowes Development v Walters ans: Claimant's mistaken belief was that land was held under a license
This means that they simply could not have the relevant intention to possess- you cannot intend to treat
the land as within your ultimate control if you believe that you are permitted to be there by the owner
Buckinghamshire CC v Moran ans: Establishes that the actions of the AP is seeking to assert physical
possession of the land also may give to a strong indication as to whether the necessary intention exists
Physical possession and intention are part and parcel of the same inquiry: that is, has the claimant
established AP?
Enclosing land by a fence may constitute both act of possession and demonstrate the intention to
possess AP?
, Changing locks - Blackburn
Grazing animals within enclosed field - Graham
Burden of proving the intention may be lighter in case in which the true owner has, to the knowledge of
the AP, abandoned the land - Michinton
Hence, unequivocal conduct in relation to acts of possession on the land is the best evidence of an
intention to possess
Physical Possession of the Land ans: As well as demonstrating the intention to possess the land, the AP
must also demonstrate a physical assumption for possession
One must assess if the squatter has disposed the paper owner by going into ordinary possession of the
land for the requisite period without the consent of the owner
Factual Possession ans: Powell v MacFarlane - sufficient degree of physical custody and control for one's
own use
Slade J: Taking possession might reside in a series of events, or some one off activity that is maintained
thereafter.
It is not necessary for the paper owner to be aware that they have lost possession, or for the paper
owner to be inconvenienced by the acts of possession
Small acts of custody and control might suffice if the land has not been abandoned, is inaccessible by the
paper owner or is of such quality that it does not readily admit of the sufficient possessory acts
Purbick v Hackney ans: Successful adverse possessor cleared a derelict shed, erected a new roof and
fitted a makeshift door and a fixed chain. He could have done more to secure possession, but he had
done enough in all circumstances.
Neither does it matter that the acts of possession serve a dual purpose, so long as they give custody and
control to the claimant for his own benefit
Hounslow v Minchinton ans: succesful adverse possessor had fenced off part of the claimant's land,
apparently to prevent the escape of her dogs, which she exercised on the land.
Counsel for the paper owner submitted that the enclosure was not designed to exclude the world, but
to confine animals, and therefore is not AP
Court took the view that it was the effect of the adverse possessor's actions that were important, not
the intention in which they were done
Effect of the fence was to keep out the world as well as keep in the dogs, it amounted to physical
possession
Adverse Possession ans: The opportunity to acquire a better title to land than the person who "legally"
owns it and to whom it was once formally conveyed with all of the solemnity of a deed or registered
disposition - Hounslow v Michinton
Land Registration Act 2002 ans: Establishes a new regime for AP for registered land - registered land
compromises of 85% of all titles
J A Pye v Graham ans: Laid out the rules that establish when a claim of AP might succeed factually and
apply equally registered and unregistered title
If alleged adverse possessor once occupied the land with the permission of the paper owner, any
continued possession after that permission has ended (lease or license has ended but the claimant stays
in possession) may be sufficient to support a claim of AP if the intention to possess is shown
How is AP Established?/ When will possession of a trespasser be sufficient to establish a claim? ans:
Rules and principles can be see in the J A Pye case
Along with the decision of Buckinghamshire CC v Moran, it shows that AP can be established by
demonstrating the required degree of exclusive physical possession of the and, coupled with an
intention to possess the land to exclusion of all others, including the paper owner with the intention to
possess
It is important that person intends to possess the land and put it to his own use, whether or not he also
knows that some other persons had a claim or right to the land
Claimant is not required to prove that he believed that the land was his, or wanted to acquire it, but that
he meant to exclude all others if he could - CRUCIAL
Focus of intention is on the claimant, not the land owner - landowner's state of mind is irrelevant
Clowes Development v Walters ans: Claimant's mistaken belief was that land was held under a license
This means that they simply could not have the relevant intention to possess- you cannot intend to treat
the land as within your ultimate control if you believe that you are permitted to be there by the owner
Buckinghamshire CC v Moran ans: Establishes that the actions of the AP is seeking to assert physical
possession of the land also may give to a strong indication as to whether the necessary intention exists
Physical possession and intention are part and parcel of the same inquiry: that is, has the claimant
established AP?
Enclosing land by a fence may constitute both act of possession and demonstrate the intention to
possess AP?
, Changing locks - Blackburn
Grazing animals within enclosed field - Graham
Burden of proving the intention may be lighter in case in which the true owner has, to the knowledge of
the AP, abandoned the land - Michinton
Hence, unequivocal conduct in relation to acts of possession on the land is the best evidence of an
intention to possess
Physical Possession of the Land ans: As well as demonstrating the intention to possess the land, the AP
must also demonstrate a physical assumption for possession
One must assess if the squatter has disposed the paper owner by going into ordinary possession of the
land for the requisite period without the consent of the owner
Factual Possession ans: Powell v MacFarlane - sufficient degree of physical custody and control for one's
own use
Slade J: Taking possession might reside in a series of events, or some one off activity that is maintained
thereafter.
It is not necessary for the paper owner to be aware that they have lost possession, or for the paper
owner to be inconvenienced by the acts of possession
Small acts of custody and control might suffice if the land has not been abandoned, is inaccessible by the
paper owner or is of such quality that it does not readily admit of the sufficient possessory acts
Purbick v Hackney ans: Successful adverse possessor cleared a derelict shed, erected a new roof and
fitted a makeshift door and a fixed chain. He could have done more to secure possession, but he had
done enough in all circumstances.
Neither does it matter that the acts of possession serve a dual purpose, so long as they give custody and
control to the claimant for his own benefit
Hounslow v Minchinton ans: succesful adverse possessor had fenced off part of the claimant's land,
apparently to prevent the escape of her dogs, which she exercised on the land.
Counsel for the paper owner submitted that the enclosure was not designed to exclude the world, but
to confine animals, and therefore is not AP
Court took the view that it was the effect of the adverse possessor's actions that were important, not
the intention in which they were done
Effect of the fence was to keep out the world as well as keep in the dogs, it amounted to physical
possession
