Lecture 26 - Adverse possession 2/2
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn:
Squatting for 12 years. Adverse possession claim, successful.
“Clarke LJ: “It was made clear in Moran (per Slade LJ at p 643)
that an intention to own the land is not required…in order to
have the necessary intention the trespasser does not have to
regard himself as entitled to exclude the lawful owner from the
premises. It is to my mind sufficient if he intends to keep the
true owner out for the time being and until he is evicted” (paras
16-17). “
So it doesn’t matter that you know you are a trespasser.
Doesn’t prevent the necessary intention to possess. But, would
it be clear from his acts that there was intention to exclude the
owner?
“It is thus of crucial importance that the trespasser’s acts must
be unequivocal. They must make it clear to the owner, if
present at the land, that he intended to exclude the owner, as
Slade J put it “as best he can” (para 20). – this is clear intention
to possess. (Remember, not intention to own).
Where you have factual possession, almost inevitably you have
intention to possess as well. “Indeed, it is difficult to find a case
in which there has been a clear finding of factual possession in
which the claim to adverse possession has failed for lack of
intention.”.
(Note: this case then went to the HOL and was overturned).
Pye v Graham:
Agricultural land in Berkshire. Pye was building company, land
held for development. Huge value in the land. Graham was a
, farmer. Allowed by Pye to have a personal license to occupy
land for grazing purpose. Land enclosed by hedges, only get to
it by foot and there was a padlock, Graham owned the only key.
He wants to renew license and Pye declines. He refuses to
leave. He still has the only key to the gate. Continue occupation
until 1997. He applies for a portion (doesn’t exist anymore), but
basically is intention that you will start possession proceedings.
Pye begin possession proceedings.
In HOL, requirements for factual possession and intention to
possess.
One of the arguments was that G’s willingness to pay
meant that there could be no intention. Lord Browne-
Wilkinson said: willingness to pay is not inconsistent with
intention to possess. See quote.
Argument: knowledge of Pye’s intended development”.
LBW said this argument focused on the intention of the
owner rather than that of possessor. So, we focus on the
intentions of the person in possession. Knowledge of the
intention of the owner is irrelevant.
Article 1, protocol 1:
Pye took the case to the ECtHR. Peaceful enjoyment of land.
See Beaulane Properties v Palmer. Argues that the law on
adverse possession is incompatible with article 1, protocol 1 in
that case.
Case against UK government. In Chamber, they found there
was a breach of Article 1, protocol 1, Pye was deprived of their
possession. Appeal to Grand Chamber, who found for the UK
government but only majority of 10 to 7.
GC focused on second paragraph of protocol 1. It was possible
to enforce these laws in accordance with the general interest.
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn:
Squatting for 12 years. Adverse possession claim, successful.
“Clarke LJ: “It was made clear in Moran (per Slade LJ at p 643)
that an intention to own the land is not required…in order to
have the necessary intention the trespasser does not have to
regard himself as entitled to exclude the lawful owner from the
premises. It is to my mind sufficient if he intends to keep the
true owner out for the time being and until he is evicted” (paras
16-17). “
So it doesn’t matter that you know you are a trespasser.
Doesn’t prevent the necessary intention to possess. But, would
it be clear from his acts that there was intention to exclude the
owner?
“It is thus of crucial importance that the trespasser’s acts must
be unequivocal. They must make it clear to the owner, if
present at the land, that he intended to exclude the owner, as
Slade J put it “as best he can” (para 20). – this is clear intention
to possess. (Remember, not intention to own).
Where you have factual possession, almost inevitably you have
intention to possess as well. “Indeed, it is difficult to find a case
in which there has been a clear finding of factual possession in
which the claim to adverse possession has failed for lack of
intention.”.
(Note: this case then went to the HOL and was overturned).
Pye v Graham:
Agricultural land in Berkshire. Pye was building company, land
held for development. Huge value in the land. Graham was a
, farmer. Allowed by Pye to have a personal license to occupy
land for grazing purpose. Land enclosed by hedges, only get to
it by foot and there was a padlock, Graham owned the only key.
He wants to renew license and Pye declines. He refuses to
leave. He still has the only key to the gate. Continue occupation
until 1997. He applies for a portion (doesn’t exist anymore), but
basically is intention that you will start possession proceedings.
Pye begin possession proceedings.
In HOL, requirements for factual possession and intention to
possess.
One of the arguments was that G’s willingness to pay
meant that there could be no intention. Lord Browne-
Wilkinson said: willingness to pay is not inconsistent with
intention to possess. See quote.
Argument: knowledge of Pye’s intended development”.
LBW said this argument focused on the intention of the
owner rather than that of possessor. So, we focus on the
intentions of the person in possession. Knowledge of the
intention of the owner is irrelevant.
Article 1, protocol 1:
Pye took the case to the ECtHR. Peaceful enjoyment of land.
See Beaulane Properties v Palmer. Argues that the law on
adverse possession is incompatible with article 1, protocol 1 in
that case.
Case against UK government. In Chamber, they found there
was a breach of Article 1, protocol 1, Pye was deprived of their
possession. Appeal to Grand Chamber, who found for the UK
government but only majority of 10 to 7.
GC focused on second paragraph of protocol 1. It was possible
to enforce these laws in accordance with the general interest.
