Adverse Possession 2
The Squatter must intent to exclude all other - including the true/ original owner
Control; it's the central issue
Whether or not a squatter can be said to have control over the property depends on what type of property it is -
Dwelling? Factory? A field?
General Rule; the smaller the piece of land in question, the more the adverse possessor will have to do in
order to show that they are in control of the land - and thereby excluding all others
Typical methods; signs, fences, padlocks, building a moat
How do we access whether they have done enough?
Have they treated/ enjoyed the land as if they were the true owner;
Port of london authority v Ashmore [2010] EWCA Civ 30
Facts; An owner of a boat wanted to claim the possession of the river bed. The boat would either float on top
of the river bed, or be sitting on it
Decision; due to the nature of the land - the court said that he did exercise physical possession
Fence it! - one of the strongest ways to evidence being in control of the land. Depends on the size of the land,
this is not always an option
Red House Farms LtD v Catchpole [1977] 2 EGLR 125
Facts; Rough bit of land - couldn't grow anything on it. Instead, the squatter shot birds on the land regularly
Decision; Yes, he succeeded because of the nature of the land and what it would typically be used for
Bucks CC v Moran [1990] CH 623
Facts; The Buckinghamshire CC acquired land next to properties with the intention of building a new road. Not
really used, left unoccupied
The previous owners extended their garden (extra section belonged to the council), Mr Moran acquired the
land and continued to do the same - cut the grass etc
The council initially did nothing, but then in 1985 they initiated the proceedings. Successful claim for adverse
possession?
Decision; Mr Moran Won! He was in a factual possession. The previous owners started the clock but mr moran
continued it without having any pause - one owner can start the clock, change of ownership does not stop the
clock - it is about what you do with the land.
B; The squatter must be in factual possession for an unbroken period of time
Conveyance does not stop the clock
Who is in possession doesn’t matter!
C; the squatter must openly carry out their possession
Can the squatter hide the fact that they are in adverse possession of the land? NO! - the clock wont start if
you are trying to conceal their presence and possession
What if the paper owner never sees it? It does not matter if the paper owner never sees it, as long as adverse
possessor is not secretive
If paper owner visits the property they should be able to tell that the property is adversely possessed
Why so important? - snooze you lose, but then you need to know it is going on. You are then required to take
positive actions to assert your rights
D; the squatters possession must be adverse to the true owner
The possession must be contrary to the rights of the original owner
No permission
, If you have permission - it cannot be adverse
Not adverse = no factual possession
What is a permission? - Lease, License - this would stop the clock!
Pye (oxford) Ltd v Graham
Facts; Pye was the owner of fields which located next to a farm owned by the grahams, who initially had a
license granted to them to use the fields. In 1986 they requested the license be extended. They received no
answer and from 1986 to 1997 the grahams continued to use the land. Did this amount adverse?
Decision; the HoL held that the G’s had successfully demonstrated that they had been in factual possession of
the land. The possession was considered adverse even though they had begun their occupation as lawful
licensees
“There would have been dispossession of the paper owner in any case where a squatter assume possession
in the ordinary sense of the word … possession is single and exclusive”
Therefore if the squatter is in possession, the paper owner cannot be
If the paper owner was at one stage in possession, the paper owner cannot be
If the paper owner was at one stage in possession, but the squatters subsequent occupation of it in law
constitutes possession, the squatter must have dispossessed the true owner
BP Properties v Buckler
Facts; Mrs Buckle thought she owned the land she lived on - she was mistaken. The land was actually owned
by BP
The true owner then granted her a license, which was sent via post to her address - no longer adverse
Decision; Dillon LJ; the rule that ‘possession is not adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title’ - this applies
even if the person in possession did not know if their lawful right to be on the property
If you can find a way to stop the clock - for example by giving the squatter the right to be on your land - no
longer adverse
You need to initiate legal proceedings against the adverse possessor - angry letter not enough (Mount Carmel
Investments v Peter Thurlow LtD [1988] 1 WLR 1078
As already covered, the possession must be adverse, otherwise you cannot have a successful claim
Lord denning - ruins the clarity and muddles up the water
The courts may imply a licence (thus giving permission to be present on the land), which in the case of AP
would remove the adverse requirement
Wallis’s cayton bay holiday camp Ltd v Shell mex & BP Ltd [1974] 3 All ER 575
Facts; The claimants own a holiday camp (on the main road) the defendants Bp, the petroleum company, own
the adjoining land (they planned to build a petrol station once the new road was built)
The true owner of the land (BP) had not used the land for 12 years
Issue; was the fact that BP has expressed intention to use it in the future enough to stop the claim for adverse
possession?
Lord Denning; the true Owner (BP) intended to use the land for a particular purpose in the future - which is
why they left the land unoccupied
Therefore the claim failed - whaattt? How is that enough!
The claimant (Holiday Camp) was subject to an implied license, which meant that the possession was not
adverse.
What does that mean for other adverse possession claims? When will licences be implied?
Post Wallis's law was very confusing!
If the land is left unoccupied but the owner expresses a desire to do something with it in future, is that
sufficient to defeat an adverse possession claim?
The Squatter must intent to exclude all other - including the true/ original owner
Control; it's the central issue
Whether or not a squatter can be said to have control over the property depends on what type of property it is -
Dwelling? Factory? A field?
General Rule; the smaller the piece of land in question, the more the adverse possessor will have to do in
order to show that they are in control of the land - and thereby excluding all others
Typical methods; signs, fences, padlocks, building a moat
How do we access whether they have done enough?
Have they treated/ enjoyed the land as if they were the true owner;
Port of london authority v Ashmore [2010] EWCA Civ 30
Facts; An owner of a boat wanted to claim the possession of the river bed. The boat would either float on top
of the river bed, or be sitting on it
Decision; due to the nature of the land - the court said that he did exercise physical possession
Fence it! - one of the strongest ways to evidence being in control of the land. Depends on the size of the land,
this is not always an option
Red House Farms LtD v Catchpole [1977] 2 EGLR 125
Facts; Rough bit of land - couldn't grow anything on it. Instead, the squatter shot birds on the land regularly
Decision; Yes, he succeeded because of the nature of the land and what it would typically be used for
Bucks CC v Moran [1990] CH 623
Facts; The Buckinghamshire CC acquired land next to properties with the intention of building a new road. Not
really used, left unoccupied
The previous owners extended their garden (extra section belonged to the council), Mr Moran acquired the
land and continued to do the same - cut the grass etc
The council initially did nothing, but then in 1985 they initiated the proceedings. Successful claim for adverse
possession?
Decision; Mr Moran Won! He was in a factual possession. The previous owners started the clock but mr moran
continued it without having any pause - one owner can start the clock, change of ownership does not stop the
clock - it is about what you do with the land.
B; The squatter must be in factual possession for an unbroken period of time
Conveyance does not stop the clock
Who is in possession doesn’t matter!
C; the squatter must openly carry out their possession
Can the squatter hide the fact that they are in adverse possession of the land? NO! - the clock wont start if
you are trying to conceal their presence and possession
What if the paper owner never sees it? It does not matter if the paper owner never sees it, as long as adverse
possessor is not secretive
If paper owner visits the property they should be able to tell that the property is adversely possessed
Why so important? - snooze you lose, but then you need to know it is going on. You are then required to take
positive actions to assert your rights
D; the squatters possession must be adverse to the true owner
The possession must be contrary to the rights of the original owner
No permission
, If you have permission - it cannot be adverse
Not adverse = no factual possession
What is a permission? - Lease, License - this would stop the clock!
Pye (oxford) Ltd v Graham
Facts; Pye was the owner of fields which located next to a farm owned by the grahams, who initially had a
license granted to them to use the fields. In 1986 they requested the license be extended. They received no
answer and from 1986 to 1997 the grahams continued to use the land. Did this amount adverse?
Decision; the HoL held that the G’s had successfully demonstrated that they had been in factual possession of
the land. The possession was considered adverse even though they had begun their occupation as lawful
licensees
“There would have been dispossession of the paper owner in any case where a squatter assume possession
in the ordinary sense of the word … possession is single and exclusive”
Therefore if the squatter is in possession, the paper owner cannot be
If the paper owner was at one stage in possession, the paper owner cannot be
If the paper owner was at one stage in possession, but the squatters subsequent occupation of it in law
constitutes possession, the squatter must have dispossessed the true owner
BP Properties v Buckler
Facts; Mrs Buckle thought she owned the land she lived on - she was mistaken. The land was actually owned
by BP
The true owner then granted her a license, which was sent via post to her address - no longer adverse
Decision; Dillon LJ; the rule that ‘possession is not adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title’ - this applies
even if the person in possession did not know if their lawful right to be on the property
If you can find a way to stop the clock - for example by giving the squatter the right to be on your land - no
longer adverse
You need to initiate legal proceedings against the adverse possessor - angry letter not enough (Mount Carmel
Investments v Peter Thurlow LtD [1988] 1 WLR 1078
As already covered, the possession must be adverse, otherwise you cannot have a successful claim
Lord denning - ruins the clarity and muddles up the water
The courts may imply a licence (thus giving permission to be present on the land), which in the case of AP
would remove the adverse requirement
Wallis’s cayton bay holiday camp Ltd v Shell mex & BP Ltd [1974] 3 All ER 575
Facts; The claimants own a holiday camp (on the main road) the defendants Bp, the petroleum company, own
the adjoining land (they planned to build a petrol station once the new road was built)
The true owner of the land (BP) had not used the land for 12 years
Issue; was the fact that BP has expressed intention to use it in the future enough to stop the claim for adverse
possession?
Lord Denning; the true Owner (BP) intended to use the land for a particular purpose in the future - which is
why they left the land unoccupied
Therefore the claim failed - whaattt? How is that enough!
The claimant (Holiday Camp) was subject to an implied license, which meant that the possession was not
adverse.
What does that mean for other adverse possession claims? When will licences be implied?
Post Wallis's law was very confusing!
If the land is left unoccupied but the owner expresses a desire to do something with it in future, is that
sufficient to defeat an adverse possession claim?
