ADVERSE POSSESSION
Introduction
Adverse possession allows a person who occupies land without permission to become the owner
without paying compensation to the original proprietor. This may sometimes be the outcome of
organised squatting (Ellis v Lambeth LBC).
Policy rationales for allowing adverse possession:
1. Establishing who owns the land, thereby facilitating conveyancing (particularly useful for
unregistered land, since root of title can become lost)
2. Ensuring legal entitlement is in line with factual reality
3. Encouraging more effective land use (use it or lose it – land is a finite resource; 600,000 empty
properties in the UK currently)
4. Labour-desert theory (less convincing; idea that by maintaining land, entitled to it)
5. Respecting psychological connection with the land
To balance interests, LRA 2002 limits AP to three cases: where O fails to assert rights when prompted,
where S reasonably believes adjoining land is his, or where S can claim the land by other grounds
Structure of adverse possession:
S enters AP immediate legal consequences legal effects of the running of time (UR + R)
Immediate Legal Consequences (Possession and Relativity of Title)
If you adversely possess land, this generates a freehold estate (fee simple) from the moment of
possession (a form of original acquisition of title)
- Turner v Chief Land Registrar
Implications of title:
1. Exclusion – S is able to exclude others from the land and can bring actions against trespass
- Armory v Delamirie (1722) (appraisal of jewel) (personal property law)
2. Transferability – if S were able to find someone interested, he could sell, lease, or gift his title
(though this is unlikely because of relativity of title)
3. Perry v Clissold – rights before completion may secure other benefits (eg right to compensation
on compulsory purchase)
S’ title will be inferior to the owner’s title because of relativity of title. Both O and S have fee simples in
law, but because O’s title comes first in time, it is given priority. If S2 dispossesses S, S’ title will take
priority over S2’s FS, and O’s title will take priority over both. O can bring a legal claim to evict S from the
moment S goes into possession.
- Asher v Whitlock (1865) (“possession is good title against all but the true owner”)
S as a tenant
When S is a tenant, there is a presumption that S is adversely possessing on behalf of the landlord, as
long as the relevant land is physically near the tenanted property. This means L gets the fee simple, not
Introduction
Adverse possession allows a person who occupies land without permission to become the owner
without paying compensation to the original proprietor. This may sometimes be the outcome of
organised squatting (Ellis v Lambeth LBC).
Policy rationales for allowing adverse possession:
1. Establishing who owns the land, thereby facilitating conveyancing (particularly useful for
unregistered land, since root of title can become lost)
2. Ensuring legal entitlement is in line with factual reality
3. Encouraging more effective land use (use it or lose it – land is a finite resource; 600,000 empty
properties in the UK currently)
4. Labour-desert theory (less convincing; idea that by maintaining land, entitled to it)
5. Respecting psychological connection with the land
To balance interests, LRA 2002 limits AP to three cases: where O fails to assert rights when prompted,
where S reasonably believes adjoining land is his, or where S can claim the land by other grounds
Structure of adverse possession:
S enters AP immediate legal consequences legal effects of the running of time (UR + R)
Immediate Legal Consequences (Possession and Relativity of Title)
If you adversely possess land, this generates a freehold estate (fee simple) from the moment of
possession (a form of original acquisition of title)
- Turner v Chief Land Registrar
Implications of title:
1. Exclusion – S is able to exclude others from the land and can bring actions against trespass
- Armory v Delamirie (1722) (appraisal of jewel) (personal property law)
2. Transferability – if S were able to find someone interested, he could sell, lease, or gift his title
(though this is unlikely because of relativity of title)
3. Perry v Clissold – rights before completion may secure other benefits (eg right to compensation
on compulsory purchase)
S’ title will be inferior to the owner’s title because of relativity of title. Both O and S have fee simples in
law, but because O’s title comes first in time, it is given priority. If S2 dispossesses S, S’ title will take
priority over S2’s FS, and O’s title will take priority over both. O can bring a legal claim to evict S from the
moment S goes into possession.
- Asher v Whitlock (1865) (“possession is good title against all but the true owner”)
S as a tenant
When S is a tenant, there is a presumption that S is adversely possessing on behalf of the landlord, as
long as the relevant land is physically near the tenanted property. This means L gets the fee simple, not
