Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

Adverse possession Problem Question

0 keer verkocht

Vak
Land Law

Instelling
Bangor University (BU)

this is a structured guide that i used to get an A+ in my exam on adverse posession. This contains case law for every element of the stages of determening adverse possession as well as a structure that you will remember in the exam hall.

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 3 van de 16 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 24 juli 2023
Aantal pagina's 16
Geschreven in 2022/2023
Type Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Bevat Vragen en antwoorden

land law
adverse possession
exam notes
answers
cases
case law

Instelling
Bangor University (BU)
Studie Onbekend
Vak
Land Law

€19,13

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel v.a. €12,83

In winkelwagen

Op verlanglijstje

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel (1)

Adverse possession and Overriding Interest

€ 30,23 € 12,83 2 items

1. Samenvatting - Overriding interests in land law is hard... get this!
2. Tentamen (uitwerkingen) - Adverse possession problem question
Meer zien

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

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Focus op de essentie

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper harryburman02. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €19,13. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 68175 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen