AP Essay Question
The reforms made to the law of adverse possession of registered land by the LRA 2002’.
- Restricting the scope
- Emphasis on land not being used productively
Introduction
The changes in the law from the limitation act to the LRA are largely policy driven. Whether or not they are welcome
largely depends on the moral stance one positions themselves on the balance of blameworthiness and moral rights
of both the landowner and squatter.
The changes in the law are due to the idea that squatters are morally blameworthy (Law Commission) whilst the
absentee landowners of unsupervised properties have been constructed as blameless. Yet, this simplistic account of
the moral issues at stake in relation to both squatting and adverse possession fails to reflect the complexities
involved in striking a balance between advertent squatters and neglectful land owners, as well as failing to take
account of the knock-on effects of squatting for use for the property market and the housing market. This balance
will be discussed.
Legal concept of squatting: In the words of Lord Denning: „…a squatter…is one who, without colour of right, enters
on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as he can.
What was the law pre 2002?
Traditional principles for acquisition of title through AP enabled the squatter to secure rights in land automatically
after 12 years. Based on principle of limitation.
If the land was unregistered, the consequences of a failure to bring a claim to dispossess the squatter were
potentially stark. If they fail to recover possession within 12 years, both the right to recover the land and their title to
it is extinguished: s 15 of the Limitation Act 1980. The adverse possessor cannot therefore be challenged by the
dispossessed party. Assuming that no one else has a better estate, they are in effect left as the new ‘owner’ of the
land.
If the dispossessed party’s state was registered, the same ultimate result also used to prevail under the Land
Registration Act 1925, albeit by a slightly different mechanism. Under the provisions of that Act, after the 12-year
period of adverse possession the registered proprietor is deemed to hold their estate on trust for the adverse
possessor: s 75(1) LRA 1925. The adverse possessor then applies to the Land Registry to be registered as the new
proprietor to the estate. The registered owner then holds on trust for the owner the squatter can then apply to be
the owner and the equitable estate vanishes.
Were there any problems with it?
The old law was controversial as it allowed squatters to possess land relatively easily – merely by being present on
the land for 12 years. The controversies of this were clearly demonstrated in the case of JA Pye where land worth
several million was taken over by squatters, and the true owner had no ability to prevent it once the 12 years had
passed. Questions were raised over how it is fair, that land could be taken away from the original owner so easily,
and some questioned whether this legitimised theft.
However, it could be argued that as land could be taken away from you so easily, that it did in fact encourage the
productive use of land as land owners had to be aware of any one potentially squatting on their land, and make sure
they still had effective control. This could be seen as a benefit of the old law.
The case of Pye confirmed that the limitation act principle was not a breach of human rights however, the
government decided to change the law partly due to the public perception of squatting and to strengthen the
proprietary rights of the registered owner. Thus, ensuring the autonomy of the estate owner.
How does the LRA 2002 affect adverse possession claims?
Due to the clear discontent with the law, in 2002 the LRA changed the law, repealing the limitation act with s.96 of
the LRA. Now, in order for a squatter to obtain title to registered land, the squatter may, after being in adverse
possession for ten years, apply to the Land Registry to be registered as proprietor no entitlement to be registered at
The reforms made to the law of adverse possession of registered land by the LRA 2002’.
- Restricting the scope
- Emphasis on land not being used productively
Introduction
The changes in the law from the limitation act to the LRA are largely policy driven. Whether or not they are welcome
largely depends on the moral stance one positions themselves on the balance of blameworthiness and moral rights
of both the landowner and squatter.
The changes in the law are due to the idea that squatters are morally blameworthy (Law Commission) whilst the
absentee landowners of unsupervised properties have been constructed as blameless. Yet, this simplistic account of
the moral issues at stake in relation to both squatting and adverse possession fails to reflect the complexities
involved in striking a balance between advertent squatters and neglectful land owners, as well as failing to take
account of the knock-on effects of squatting for use for the property market and the housing market. This balance
will be discussed.
Legal concept of squatting: In the words of Lord Denning: „…a squatter…is one who, without colour of right, enters
on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as he can.
What was the law pre 2002?
Traditional principles for acquisition of title through AP enabled the squatter to secure rights in land automatically
after 12 years. Based on principle of limitation.
If the land was unregistered, the consequences of a failure to bring a claim to dispossess the squatter were
potentially stark. If they fail to recover possession within 12 years, both the right to recover the land and their title to
it is extinguished: s 15 of the Limitation Act 1980. The adverse possessor cannot therefore be challenged by the
dispossessed party. Assuming that no one else has a better estate, they are in effect left as the new ‘owner’ of the
land.
If the dispossessed party’s state was registered, the same ultimate result also used to prevail under the Land
Registration Act 1925, albeit by a slightly different mechanism. Under the provisions of that Act, after the 12-year
period of adverse possession the registered proprietor is deemed to hold their estate on trust for the adverse
possessor: s 75(1) LRA 1925. The adverse possessor then applies to the Land Registry to be registered as the new
proprietor to the estate. The registered owner then holds on trust for the owner the squatter can then apply to be
the owner and the equitable estate vanishes.
Were there any problems with it?
The old law was controversial as it allowed squatters to possess land relatively easily – merely by being present on
the land for 12 years. The controversies of this were clearly demonstrated in the case of JA Pye where land worth
several million was taken over by squatters, and the true owner had no ability to prevent it once the 12 years had
passed. Questions were raised over how it is fair, that land could be taken away from the original owner so easily,
and some questioned whether this legitimised theft.
However, it could be argued that as land could be taken away from you so easily, that it did in fact encourage the
productive use of land as land owners had to be aware of any one potentially squatting on their land, and make sure
they still had effective control. This could be seen as a benefit of the old law.
The case of Pye confirmed that the limitation act principle was not a breach of human rights however, the
government decided to change the law partly due to the public perception of squatting and to strengthen the
proprietary rights of the registered owner. Thus, ensuring the autonomy of the estate owner.
How does the LRA 2002 affect adverse possession claims?
Due to the clear discontent with the law, in 2002 the LRA changed the law, repealing the limitation act with s.96 of
the LRA. Now, in order for a squatter to obtain title to registered land, the squatter may, after being in adverse
possession for ten years, apply to the Land Registry to be registered as proprietor no entitlement to be registered at
