Latest Updated 2023 Land Law- Adverse Possession

Latest Updated 2023 Land Law- Adverse Possession

Question:
Jim was the registered owner of Blackacre, where he carried on a vehicle-repair business. Adjoining
Blackacre there was a plot of land on which there was a terrace of uninhibited houses awaiting
demolition. The local council was the registered owner of this plot and it planned to develop the plot
by building a small block of flats. In the meantime, it had boarded up the houses. In 1992 Jim
removed the boards from the house closest to Blackacre and began using the house for storage
purposes. He fixed a steel door to which he attached a padlock and in 1993 he installed electricity,
which enabled him to so small repair jobs in the house. The council’s representative visited the plot
from time to time and was aware of what Jim was doing, but he raised no objection. Early in 2005
the council wrote to Jim informing him that it wished to redevelop the plot and demanding that he
leave.
Advise Jim.
How, if at all, would your advice differ if the plot had been unregistered land?
Answer:
If (defendant) formally recognises (claimant’s) title, the clock of adverse possession restarts
from the moment the title is recognised under Section 29 and 30 Limitations Act 1980. Has the clock
start ticking for (claimant?)
Adverse possession is enshrined in a mixture of common law and statutory rules, ie, “combination of
confusing, anomalies of haphazard laws” per… Therefore, the (claimant) is advised that the outcome
may be unpredictable
Article 39 of Magna Carta 1225: “No free man shall be … disseised (i.e. dispossessed of land)… except
by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”.
There are two parties to this question. Jim, the registered owner of Blackacre and the local council
(LC), registered owner of the adjoining plot of land with Blackacre. On the facts, Jim started to use
the house, on the land owned by LC, which is closest to Blackacre (the house) without adhering to
the formalities of ownership, the focus of the question would be on Adverse Possession (AP). Jim
would like to continue using the house upon being informed of LC’s intention to redevelop their plot
and demands for Jim to leave the house. Jim is advised to claim under AP over the house as his best
option. Candidate will firstly, determine whether Jim acquired any rights over the house by way of
AP by examining the certain elements of AP. Secondly, candidate will investigate the LC’s plan to
develop the plot of their land and the effect of a successful AP claim if in the event Jim is able to
establish the elements of AP within the time duration and run through the registration procedures
and additional issues present in the facts, such as LC’s letter of demand. Thirdly, candidate will
explain whether the action of the LC’s representative who visits the plot, occasionally can be relied
as an exceptional ground under Proprietary Estoppel by Jim so he is able to be registered as a new
proprietor, in the event the LC decided to reject or files a counter-notice to evict Jim. Lastly, Jim will
be advised in the significant change in law of AP if the land he is dealing with is unregistered land. In
short, Jim’s unlawful act of trespassing and informal possession the house for a sufficient duration of
time, subject to the requirements and exceptions may acquire him the “good title” as new
proprietor of the house on LC’s land. Dixon states, the modern exposition on the existing off-register
mechanism to destroy proprietary-title is a mockery of the state guarantee of title. Nevertheless,
this essay is regarding whether the law of AP favours () or ().
..labelled adverse possession as “legalised land grab”. Dixon, “Modern Land Law: 12th Edition”, 2021
defines adverse possession as golden-opportunity to a mere trespasser to prove themselves they
acquire better title to land than that person who ‘legally’ owns it. Possession is adverse if it is
enjoyed without permission or lawful title, hence, the tenant was not a possesser in Coclchester v
Smith. Possession must be open so that the owner has the opportunity to find out per… but the
squatter is under no obligation to draw the owners attention to what is happening as in Topplan
Estates Ltd v Townley