Lecture notes
Law 1122 Adverse Possession Notes
- Module
- LLB Law - Land Law
- Institution
- Newcastle University (NCL)
Comprehensive and detailed land law notes on adverse possession. *Essential!! *Precise!! *For you!!
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Adverse Possession The court will not look at who is the true owner of the land instead they will
look at the two competing claims and the who has the best claim (Thus the
most recent possessor of the property) will be favoured by the court (Nicholls
V Ely Beet Sugar Factory [1931] and Mount Carmel Investment Ltd v Peter
Thurlow Ltd [1988])
The three things which the new possessor must show:
1. Factual possession
a. Powell v Macfarlane (1970) - “appropriate degree of physical control
to amount to possession in fact?”, thus the idea of what he does on
the land to show possession
b. Red House Farms (thornden) Ltd v Catchpole [1977] where the
shooting of wildfowls was enough because that is the only thing one
could do on that particular land.
c. Trivial acts such as recreational use will not suffice: Tecbuild Ltdv
Chamberlain. Unless trivial act is the only sensible use of the land:
Mayor of London Borough of Hounslow v Minchinton.
d. Boosey v Davis (1987) - Adverse possession is dependant upon
dispossession of the owner, and the grazing of goats and erection
of a fence are insufficient for this.
e. Treloar v Nute (1976) - possession must necessarily cause an
nconvenience or annoyance to the paper owner
f. Seddon v Smith (1950) - “Enclosure is the strongest possible
evidence of adverse possession,”
g. West Bank Estates v Arthur, Pye v Graham - Objective rather than
subjective test: resources and status of the individual parties
irrelevant:
2. Animus Possidendi
a. Powell v Macfarlane (1970) - intention to possess the land to
exclude others
b. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc [1999]
states that the claimant must, of course, be shown to have the
subjective intention to possess the land, but he must also show by
his outward conduct that that was his intention.
c. Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] – locking a
padlock was seen to suffice to exclude all others. Furthermore the
squatter must show that the land was used to his own advantage.
d. Pye v Graham [2003] the emphasis of both; factual and intentional
possession. Grazing horses and cutting the hay was seen as the
factual possession.
e. Lodge v Wakefield - The requirement is to possess the property not
to acquire the property
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 anyiamgeorge19. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £9.43. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
78388 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