Land Law Adverse Possession
o 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
o Land Registration Act 2002 ans: Establishes a new regime for AP for registered land - registered
land compromises of 85% of all titles
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o Focus of intention is on the claimant, not the land owner - landowner's state of mind is
irrelevant
o Clowes Development v Walters ans: Claimant's mistaken belief was that land was held under a
license
o 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
o 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
, o Physical possession and intention are part and parcel of the same inquiry: that is, has the
claimant established AP?
o Enclosing land by a fence may constitute both act of possession and demonstrate the intention
to possess AP?
o Changing locks - Blackburn
o Grazing animals within enclosed field - Graham
o 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
o Hence, unequivocal conduct in relation to acts of possession on the land is the best evidence of
an intention to possess
o 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
o 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
o Factual Possession ans: Powell v MacFarlane - sufficient degree of physical custody and control
for one's own use
o Slade J: Taking possession might reside in a series of events, or some one off activity that is
maintained thereafter.
o 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
o 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
o 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.
o 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
o 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.
o 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
o 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
o Land Registration Act 2002 ans: Establishes a new regime for AP for registered land - registered
land compromises of 85% of all titles
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o 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
o Focus of intention is on the claimant, not the land owner - landowner's state of mind is
irrelevant
o Clowes Development v Walters ans: Claimant's mistaken belief was that land was held under a
license
o 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
o 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
, o Physical possession and intention are part and parcel of the same inquiry: that is, has the
claimant established AP?
o Enclosing land by a fence may constitute both act of possession and demonstrate the intention
to possess AP?
o Changing locks - Blackburn
o Grazing animals within enclosed field - Graham
o 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
o Hence, unequivocal conduct in relation to acts of possession on the land is the best evidence of
an intention to possess
o 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
o 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
o Factual Possession ans: Powell v MacFarlane - sufficient degree of physical custody and control
for one's own use
o Slade J: Taking possession might reside in a series of events, or some one off activity that is
maintained thereafter.
o 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
o 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
o 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.
o 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
o 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.
o 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
