ADVERSE POSSESSION
What is adverse possession?
Adverse possession provides a route to obtain title for a person who moves onto or otherwise takes
over a piece of land belonging to someone else and uses it for their own benefit.
—————————————————————————————
TEST
Adverse possession is established by demonstrating the required degree of exclusive physical pos-
session of the land – coupled with an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all of others
1) Physical possession
J A Pye Ltd v Graham
- Did the squatter affectively dispossess the paper owner they going into ordinary possession of the
land without consent of the paper owner?
Lord Wilkinson
- he warned against over analysing what is meant by ‘adverse’
1) King of Benefice of New-born Newcastle
-the church had been conveyed to the church authorities without its burial vault in 1837. The church
authorities have never entered the vault and simply controlling access to it was not sufficient for ad-
verse possession
1) Powell v McFarland
- ‘has the alleged possessor been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might
have been expected to deal with it and that no one else has done so’
1) Techbild v Chamberlin
- in this case children played and ponies were grazed on a small parcel of land – there was no at-
tempt to keep the paper owner out thus there was no adverse possession
CONTRAST
1) Williams v Jones
- grazing sheep on the land was sufficient for possession
1) Houndslow v Minchinton
- the purpose of the act is not relevant
- The claimant put up a fence on the land to stop dogs escaping, rather than to exclude people from
entering
- It was held that this was still physical possession as it has the effect of absolve possession
-
,1) Thorpe v Frank
- paving also can be sufficient evidence of factual possession of the land where there is an appro-
priate intention to possess
1) Amirtharaja v White
- the use of a piece of land consistent with a right-of-way or easement does not demonstrate the re-
quired unequivocal possession of the land
2) INTENTION TO POSESS THE LAND
The adverse possessor must intend to possess the land to the exclusion of all others – this is known
as Animus Possidendi.
2) Powell v McFarland
• has the possessor put the land to their own use?
2) J A Pye v Graham
• The squatter must demonstrate a degree of custody and control and must try to exclude the paper
owner as much as possible.
——————————————-
POWELL V MCFARLAND
The defendant Macfarlane bought a field in 1952 and subsequently went abroad until 1967
In 1956 the plaintiff started using the field for grazing the family cow and clay pigeon shooting, he
was aged 14
In 1973 Powell issued a writ claiming a statutory title to the land by adverse possession
Held: NO AP
———————————————
J A PYE v GRAHAM
1977 pie sold a farmhouse and some of the land, but retained the disputed land – he thought he may
develop it in the future
There was agreement with the buyer of the farmhouse to graze animals on the disputed land
In 1982 the grahams purchased the farmhouse and in the following year they entered an annual
grazing agreement for the disputed land
The following year, Pai refused to renew the agreement as he wish to apply for planning permission
– he did this because he thought it would be easier if the land was not in use – the greens were
asked to vacate
, However, the grahams continue to occupy the land it was fully enclosed, the gate is padlocked, the
key was held by the grams in the following year the grains requested a new agreement – this was
not accepted
The grahams continue to use the land
They did not bother to communicate with pie again as he was not responding to them
In 1999 pi wish to gain possession of the land
Held: the Grahams had defeated his claim by establishing adverse possession
——————————————————————————
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE CC v MORAN
Plot required for future use as a public road, but used by adjoining owner as part of his garden
The claimant bought a new lock and chain, fasten the gate in the fence and kept the key
Held: the defendants had acquired complete and exclusive physical control of the plot since he had
secured its complete inclusion and annexation to his house; and that, accordingly, the defendant acts
amounted to an unequivocal demonstration of his intention to possess the plot’
—————————————————————————
LAMBETH LBC v BLACKBURN
The council owned a block of eight flats
The defendants broke into one of these flats in 1988 – he changed the lock to the flat
The flight had been severely damaged by fire
The defendants carried out some renovations on the flat – the council started possession proceed-
ings in 2000
Held: the fact that at any particular moment the trespasser expects or intends to leave the property in
the near future does not prevent him from having the requisite intention to possess
The defendant had also remove the existing padlock and was living in the flat as his home; those
fax, taken together, would have unequivocally shown the authority that the defendant intended to
exclude everyone including the authority, from the flat.
————————————————————————
TECBILD v CHAMBERLIN
The children had played on the plots one they had wished
The ponies had been tested and exercise there, but the stabling had been elsewhere
What is adverse possession?
Adverse possession provides a route to obtain title for a person who moves onto or otherwise takes
over a piece of land belonging to someone else and uses it for their own benefit.
—————————————————————————————
TEST
Adverse possession is established by demonstrating the required degree of exclusive physical pos-
session of the land – coupled with an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all of others
1) Physical possession
J A Pye Ltd v Graham
- Did the squatter affectively dispossess the paper owner they going into ordinary possession of the
land without consent of the paper owner?
Lord Wilkinson
- he warned against over analysing what is meant by ‘adverse’
1) King of Benefice of New-born Newcastle
-the church had been conveyed to the church authorities without its burial vault in 1837. The church
authorities have never entered the vault and simply controlling access to it was not sufficient for ad-
verse possession
1) Powell v McFarland
- ‘has the alleged possessor been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might
have been expected to deal with it and that no one else has done so’
1) Techbild v Chamberlin
- in this case children played and ponies were grazed on a small parcel of land – there was no at-
tempt to keep the paper owner out thus there was no adverse possession
CONTRAST
1) Williams v Jones
- grazing sheep on the land was sufficient for possession
1) Houndslow v Minchinton
- the purpose of the act is not relevant
- The claimant put up a fence on the land to stop dogs escaping, rather than to exclude people from
entering
- It was held that this was still physical possession as it has the effect of absolve possession
-
,1) Thorpe v Frank
- paving also can be sufficient evidence of factual possession of the land where there is an appro-
priate intention to possess
1) Amirtharaja v White
- the use of a piece of land consistent with a right-of-way or easement does not demonstrate the re-
quired unequivocal possession of the land
2) INTENTION TO POSESS THE LAND
The adverse possessor must intend to possess the land to the exclusion of all others – this is known
as Animus Possidendi.
2) Powell v McFarland
• has the possessor put the land to their own use?
2) J A Pye v Graham
• The squatter must demonstrate a degree of custody and control and must try to exclude the paper
owner as much as possible.
——————————————-
POWELL V MCFARLAND
The defendant Macfarlane bought a field in 1952 and subsequently went abroad until 1967
In 1956 the plaintiff started using the field for grazing the family cow and clay pigeon shooting, he
was aged 14
In 1973 Powell issued a writ claiming a statutory title to the land by adverse possession
Held: NO AP
———————————————
J A PYE v GRAHAM
1977 pie sold a farmhouse and some of the land, but retained the disputed land – he thought he may
develop it in the future
There was agreement with the buyer of the farmhouse to graze animals on the disputed land
In 1982 the grahams purchased the farmhouse and in the following year they entered an annual
grazing agreement for the disputed land
The following year, Pai refused to renew the agreement as he wish to apply for planning permission
– he did this because he thought it would be easier if the land was not in use – the greens were
asked to vacate
, However, the grahams continue to occupy the land it was fully enclosed, the gate is padlocked, the
key was held by the grams in the following year the grains requested a new agreement – this was
not accepted
The grahams continue to use the land
They did not bother to communicate with pie again as he was not responding to them
In 1999 pi wish to gain possession of the land
Held: the Grahams had defeated his claim by establishing adverse possession
——————————————————————————
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE CC v MORAN
Plot required for future use as a public road, but used by adjoining owner as part of his garden
The claimant bought a new lock and chain, fasten the gate in the fence and kept the key
Held: the defendants had acquired complete and exclusive physical control of the plot since he had
secured its complete inclusion and annexation to his house; and that, accordingly, the defendant acts
amounted to an unequivocal demonstration of his intention to possess the plot’
—————————————————————————
LAMBETH LBC v BLACKBURN
The council owned a block of eight flats
The defendants broke into one of these flats in 1988 – he changed the lock to the flat
The flight had been severely damaged by fire
The defendants carried out some renovations on the flat – the council started possession proceed-
ings in 2000
Held: the fact that at any particular moment the trespasser expects or intends to leave the property in
the near future does not prevent him from having the requisite intention to possess
The defendant had also remove the existing padlock and was living in the flat as his home; those
fax, taken together, would have unequivocally shown the authority that the defendant intended to
exclude everyone including the authority, from the flat.
————————————————————————
TECBILD v CHAMBERLIN
The children had played on the plots one they had wished
The ponies had been tested and exercise there, but the stabling had been elsewhere
