Exam (elaborations)
Land Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Module
- Land Law
- Institution
- Queen Mary, University Of London (QMUL)
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Land Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
1 review
By: heatstrok3 • 5 year ago
Content preview
ADVERSE POSSESSION 4) Intention to possess: Intention to exclude others 2) Squatter has not acknowledged paper owner’s title in writing• Pye: It’s not intention to own the land permanently, but to possess it • S29-30 Limitation Act 1980: Squatter’s written acknowledgement of paper owner’s title
• Informal ownership rights o Squatter’s willingness to pay rent/leave doesn’t matter will stop time running ∴ time must start again
• ‘Squatter’s rights’: Trespasser can acquire a better right to land than the paper owner Blackburn (2000) • E.g. offers to buy land, rent it, enquires whether owner intends to sell
• To be AP, must establish: - B entered bordered up council flat: changed locks + improved property Edgington v Clark (1964)
o Factual possession - Knew he could be evicted at any time + said he’d pay rent in future - Squatter offered in writing to purchase land = implied acknowledgement of paper
o Intent to possess à Degree must be so high that both exist - Court: despite this, only needed intention to possess for time being ∴ B won owner’s title
1) S15(6): AP/limitation period begins when paper owner dispossessed/discontinued his possession o Future plans irrelevant • ‘Without prejudice’ letters cannot be used as evidence by owner against AP claim
• Court looks at who has the best claim, not who is true owner Wallis Cayton Holiday Camp v BP [1975] à Earlier case: earmarking prevented AP claims • Oral acknowledgement ≠ stop time running
• Sched 6, para 11 LRA 2002: squatter can rely on previous squatter’s periods of possession - Petrol company owned land + intended to build a new road in the future • Possession orders from court = stops time running, but not the letter telling them to leave
o 1981: A = legal owner, purchased fee simple of café - dispossessed - Squatter claimed AP after 12 years
3) Paper owner retakes physical possession of land before limitation period ends
o 1990: Empty + bordered up property, B moves in - discontinued - Denning: cannot lose title just b/c someone enters + uses land for temporary purpose
• If paper owner takes possession within AP time period, squatters time period starts again
o 1998: B leaves. C moves in - Implied license b/c possession didn’t hinder future plans - allowed to occupy until
Zarb v Parry [2011]
paper owner needed it back
o 2002: B’s 8 years added to C’s 4 years ∴ C can claim A’s 12 year period to claim back ended - Dispute over strip. Z replaced original fences, cut down tree.
VS.
o If C died, time transferred via will to X - But P approached + argued. Z retreated ∴ NO AP. Only preliminary steps to taking FP.
• Rejected by Sched 1, para 8(4) LA 1980: Doesn’t imply license just b/c possession wasn’t
2) Factual Possession: e.g. took down boards *Based on facts, no precedent cases! à Mere entry of land ≠ sufficient, must show a retaking of control of land
inconsistent w/ future plans à Confirmed in Moran: only squatter’s intention matters (!)
• (Powell v McFarlane) Slade J: ‘Dealing w/ land as an occupying owner would do + no one else has’ UNREGISTERED LAND
Moran (1990) à Authority
- Q) Sufficient degree of physical control/treated it as his own? - Council bought land for future road development Limitation Act 1980: At least 12 years
• Exclusive possession: excludes the world, including true owners - For over 12 years, M incorporated land into his garden: erected fence, gate, lock • S15 Limitation Act 1980: 12-year limitation period
• Objective test: looks at evidence of X’s actions/type of land/other facts: - Council sued: squatter’s intention interferes w/ council’s future plans • If less than 12 years: owner can bring action against squatter
Pye (2003) - Court: No. Council’s future plans didn’t stop M from intending to exclude everyone ∴ advise squatter not to aggravate owner whilst limitation period exists
- Land licensed for farming: grazed cattle, maintained boundary w/ fence, trimmed hedges • S17: If over 12 years, owner barred by statute from recovering title to the land
- License ended, but remained + continued farming Pye
- Before 12-year period: both had title.
- Court: all of which amounted to usual farming activities (main purpose of land) - HoL: very rare for intended future use to prevent AP
- After: owner’s title extinguishes à by keeping unregistered rules = encourages registration
à Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘heretical and wrong1 to base it on paper owner’s intention
o Wall à If repaired wall b/c you damaged it ≠ FP, isolated act • Now, squatter can apply for registration of title (LRA 2002) on the Land Register
- Future plans of paper owner = irrelevant (!)
Prudential Assurance v Waterloo (1999) • If Land belongs to crown: 30 years
- Repaired wall, security camera, removed graffiti from wall, included wall when leased land • Effect: Favours the squatter
Freehold
- Court: activities related to wall ∴ FP o Radley-Gardner: Agrees w/ Moran - intention to possess for time being
• If 12 years passed, NO transfer of title b/c squatter gains title from possession
o Tee: Squatter should establish intention to own permanently
o Riverbed • Takes land subject to all pre-existing rights, even if not registered as Land Charges
• Intention to make use of it for his own benefit - Security cameras: ensure thieves stay off his land - Squatter ≠ equity’s darling
Ashmore [2009]
- E.g. If looks after friend’s house: factual possession, but not intention to possess! - But may deal w/ land as if it were their own: sell, lease, grant easements etc.
- River sometimes covered riverbed, sometimes didn’t b/c low tide
Pye • No proof of title, until conveys land by deed to purchaser
- No need to prove you’re constantly using the riverbed
- Intention to possess: • Deed = first evidence of AP’s title + title of new purchaser
o Cockburn CJ: Enclosure = strongest evidence of adverse possession 1) Carried out other activities not under the grazing agreement • Title confirmed when AP successfully applies for first registration of title under LRA 2002
Purbrick v Hackney [2003] 2) License ended, but remained w/o P’s permission
- Enclosed land w/ padlock, erected new roof, makeshift door, cleared derelict shed 3) Farmed the disputed land the same as the rest of the firm Leasehold
- Slade J: clear evidence of ‘locking / blocking the only means of access’ • If current owner is tenant under lease: 12 years, then statute-barred from claiming lease
o Fencing/locking gates * Shed: Does it occupy all of the land? • Landlord (freehold owner): 12 years, but doesn’t start running until lease ends
Minchinton [1997] Moran - Using part of land ≠ AP
- Fence to keep dogs in, no intention to exclude world - Padlock = visibly trying to exclude all others *Supply of water + electricity 1) Lease ends > 12 years AP > Squatter may claim L’s freehold
- Court: Motive doesn’t matter, effect of AP matters (excluded world) - Don’t want others to use what you’re paying to supply 2) Landlord may bring forfeiture proceedings against tenant, e.g. rent not paid
o Motive for fencing?
o Enough is more than enough: no need to do everything an owner would do Minchinton (1997) *Intention may change over time! - Terminates lease + brings forward landlord’s right to eject squatter
Purbrick v Hackney [2003] - Just b/c locked gate is to stop animals escaping (/store tools) ≠strong enough evidence of 3) If tenant surrendered lease, L may bring forward possession proceedings to evict squatter
- Stored equipment + repaired property intending exclusive possession? - S15(2): Either evict squatter within 6 years when lease ends OR within 12 years
- Court: sufficient, did enough for this type of property which an owner would have done from when squatter evicted tenant, whichever expires last
• Objective test, BUT subjective: squatter must prove he had intention to exercise exclusive control
o Small acts suffice: do what you can w/ the land Bolton (1990) à refused to give evidence Fairweather v St Marylebone Property (1963) à before squatter registers
- Squatter failed to state what they intended ∴ court dismissed action - Tenant surrendered lease to landlord = terminated lease
Redhouse Farms [1977]
- Inaccessible marshland ∴ landlord had immediate right to possession + bring action against squatter
5) Possession must be adverse (w/o consent)
- Used land to shoot animals = FP, b/c not many uses on that type of land • Permission to be on land ≠ adverse REGISTERED LAND: protects ownership
o Trivial/irregular acts ≠ factual possession • Unilateral license • S15 LA 1980: 12-years
BP Properties v Buckler [1987] • S75(1) LRA 1925: before registration, held land on trust for the squatter
Chamberlain (1969)
- BP wrote to squatter: you may stay in property rent-free • S96 LRA 2002: NO limitation period to evict squatter. But squatter can apply for registration
- Children played on land + grazed ponies ≠ FP, too trivial
- Never replied to letter ∴ unilateral license ∴ NO AP after 10-years ∴ disapplied 12-year limitation period
Boosey v Davis [1987] à Thompson dissents: owner should not be able to covert the squatting into a unilateral • LRA 2002 enforceable from October 13th 2003 onwards.
- Cleared vegetation, fencing work for part of year license just b/c the squatter ignored the letter - If completed 12 years before Oct 13th, LRA 2002 rule doesn’t apply.
- Court: insufficient, b/c acts done for his goats to use land for short period of year = Undermines policy of AP if owners enforced rights unilaterally
• Application for registration: sends notice to owner, who has 65 days to respond
*Consider squatter’s individual acts, then evaluate as a whole to determine if there’s FP *Did owners give permission or ‘PREPARED’ to give permission? o No response = registered w/ title
• Possession doesn’t need to cause inconvenience to paper owner • Implied consent: e.g. owner sees you repeatedly + doesn’t object 1) Consents = title of land transferred to squatter who will be registered proprietor
3) Open possession Colin Dawson Windows v West Norfolk (2005) 2) Objects = Land Registry rejects application
• S32 Limitation Act 1980: Possession must not be fraudulent/deliberately concealed from owner - Company used disputed land as a car park, whilst negotiations to buy it went on. - Must obtain possession order to remove squatter within 2 years
- Time does not run until owner can find out AP on reasonably careful inspection of land - Negotiations broke down - If fails, squatter can re-apply + automatically become registered
∴ given chance to remove squatter - Court: implied permission, b/c paper owner openly corresponded ∴ infer owner allowed 3) Serves counter-notice
company to remain on land during negotiations - Squatter cannot be new registered proprietor, unless meets 1/3 exceptions
HOW TO STOP THE CLOCK OF LIMITATION FOR UNREGISTERED LAND - If not, 2 years à re-apply
1) Successful action for possession by paper owner before limitation period ends
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
57413 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now