adverse possession case law

Question 1

case to compare with Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

Answer 1

Boosey v Davis 1988

Question 2

Case example for ‘intention, for the time being, to possess the land’

Answer 2

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001

Question 3

Fencing insufficient to establish factual possession - fence was to enclose goat, not exclude the world at large.

Answer 3

Boosey v Davis 1988

Question 4

which case established enclosure as unnecessary to establish factual possession

Answer 4

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Question 5

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001

Answer 5

case example for ‘intention, for the time being, to possess the land.’
Man intended to stay in council flat until he was evicted = sufficient to establish intent.

Question 6

case to compare with boosey v Davis 1988

Answer 6

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

Question 7

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

Answer 7

Established, when considering whether someone has factual possession, that it is the effect of the adverse possessors actions that is important, rather than their subjective motivation.
lady enclosing land to keep dogs safe while she exercised.

Question 8

Case regarding a boundary dispute which reflects courts narrow interpretation of exceptions to principles of LRA’02 regarding the ability for an adverse possessor to gain a stronger title despite counter notice being served.

Answer 8

Dowse v City of Bradford 2020

Question 9

Dowse v City of Bradford 2020

Answer 9

Case regarding a boundary dispute which reflects courts narrow interpretation of exceptions to principles of LRA’02 regarding the ability for an adverse possessor to gain a stronger title despite counter notice being served.

Question 10

__?__ v City of Bradford 2020

Answer 10

Dowse

Question 11

dowse v __?__

Answer 11

City of Bradford 2020

Question 12

__?__ v greenmanor 2012

Answer 12

Pilford

Question 13

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Answer 13

established fencing as unnecessary to show sufficient physical control and custody in some instances, depending on the nature of the land

Question 14

__?__ v minchinton 1997

Answer 14

Hounslow LBC

Question 15

Hounslow v Minchinton __?__

Answer 15

1997

Question 16

case clarifying factual possession need not be inconsistent with future intended use by paper owner for it to be adverse

Answer 16

Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990

Question 17

Leigh v Jack 1879

Answer 17

case which held, in order for possession to be adverse, it should be inconsistent with future intended use by true owner.

Question 17

case which held, in order for possession to be adverse, it should be inconsistent with future intended use by true owner.

Answer 17

Leigh v Jack 1879

Question 18

which case + by which judge directly rejected principle set in Leigh v Jack 1879

Answer 18

J A Pye (Oxford) v Graham 2003
Lord Browne-Wilkinson ‘heretical and wrong’

Question 19

case based on similar facts as Pye v Graham that had a different outcome.

Answer 19

Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

Question 20

Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

Answer 20

case with similar facts to Pye v Graham in which Deputy Judge of the High Court held the old laws on AP to be incompatible with ECHR.

Question 21

why might Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer have had a different outcome to Pye v Graham?

Answer 21

Pye judgement came before HRA enacted the ECHR into English law, Beaulane came after.

Question 22

How did courts achieve compatibility between UK and EU law in Beaulane Property Ltd v Palmer 2005

Answer 22

the court reinterpreted statutory provisions of the limitation act 1980 in accordance with S.3 of the HRA ‘98,
allowing the land owner to retain title- reviving the principle set in Leigh v Jack 1879.

Question 23

why was Beaulane Property Ltd deemed a violation of art 1 provision 1 ECHR by court?(5)

Answer 23

due to the facts of the case meaning that
- expropriation of land
-wanted by its owner for future use
-without compensation
would be
- disproportionate
- not be in the public interest and so it would not advance any legitimate aims of the statutory provisions

Question 24

__?___ v Palmer 2005

Answer 24

Beaulane Property Ltd

Question 25

Beaulane property Ltd v __?__

Answer 25

Palmer 2005

Question 26

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain 1969

Answer 26

factual possession cannot be presumed from "mere trivial acts of trespass"

Question 27

Tecbild Ltd v __?__

Answer 27

Chamberlain 1969

Question 28

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain _?_

Answer 28

1969

Question 29

__?__ v Chamberlain _?_

Answer 29

Tecbild Ltd 1969

Question 30

case establishing: possession cannot be presumed from "mere trivial acts of trespass"

Answer 30

Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain 1969

Question 31

Powell v Mcfarlane 1977 per slade j on physical control

Answer 31

'an appropriate degree of physical control'

Question 32

which scholars identified areas to establish factual possession and animus possidendi

Answer 32

Megarry and Wade

Question 33

_?_ and wade

Answer 33

megarry

Question 34

Case which held, when determining if the degree of control over land is sufficient, it is the EFFECT of the adverse possessors actions, rather than the SUBJECTIVE MOTIVATION, that is important. i.e., the effect was exclusion of the world at large.

Answer 34

Hounslow LBC v Minchinton 1997

Question 35

megarry and wade 4 areas to establish factual possession

Answer 35

1. physical control 2. singular possession 3. exclusive possession 4. behaving as a true owner might

Question 36

Erection of fencing as an appropriate degree of physical control

Answer 36

George Wimpey & Co Ltd v Sohn 1967

Question 37

padlock on gate as an appropriate degree of physical control

Answer 37

Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990

Question 38

slade j on 'behaving as a true owner might'

Answer 38

'ask has the alleged possessor ... been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it and no-one else has done so'

Question 39

George Wimpey & Co Ltd v Sohn _?_

Answer 39

1967

Question 40

section 32 limitation act clause

Answer 40

AP must not be deliberately concealed, must be the sort the paper owner, with reasonable diligence, could discover.

Question 41

factual possession must be adverse but .... (per Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990)

Answer 41

need not be inconsistent with future intended use by paper owner for it to be adverse.

Question 42

'enclosure is the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession' case and judge

Answer 42

seddon v smith 1877 per lfl Cockburn

Question 43

seddon v _?_

Answer 43

smith 1877

Question 44

_?_ v smith 1877

Answer 44

seddon

Question 45

seddon v smith _?_

Answer 45

1877

Question 46

quote from Seddon v Smith 1877, per _?_

Answer 46

'enclosure is the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession' per lfl Cockburn

Question 47

Lfl Cockburn, Seddon v Smith 1877 - 'enclosure is ... _____?____'

Answer 47

the strongest possible evidence for adverse possession

Question 48

case to compare with seddon v smith? (2)

Answer 48

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012 - enclosure not always necessary depending on nature of land Boosey v Davis 1988 - enclosure not enough

Question 49

QUOTE: Pilford v Greenmanor 2012 , on why enclosure unnecessary

Answer 49

'acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control bearing in mind the nature of the land.'

Question 50

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012 'acts were sufficient to _________ _________'

Answer 50

amount to physical custody and control bearing in mind the nature of the land

Question 51

'________________ bearing in mind the nature of the land' - Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Answer 51

acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control

Question 52

'acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control _____________' - Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Answer 52

bearing in mind the nature of the land.

Question 53

which case established enclosure as unnecessary to establish factual possession

Answer 53

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Question 54

which case could you compare with boosey v Davis 1988 other than Hounslow LBC

Answer 54

Seddon v Smith 1877 enclosure was not enough in boosey, despite being considered by lfl Cockburn as 'strongest possible evidence of adverse possession'

Question 55

Factual possession is an _?_ and depends on __?__

Answer 55

Act Circumstances

Question 56

case showing that factual possession is an act and depends on circumstances

Answer 56

Pilford v Greenmanor 2012

Question 57

Powell v McFarlane, per Slade J definition of 'intent to possess' (5)

Answer 57

-'the intention, in ones own name and on ones own behalf, -to exclude the world at large, -including the owner with the paper title, -so far as is reasonably practicable -and so far as the process of laws will allow.'

Question 58

intention to possess quote per Hoffman J in Buckinghamshire CC v Moran 1990 (3)

Answer 58

-'not an intention to own -or even to acquire ownership, -but an intention to possess.'

Question 59

'not an intention to own or even to acquire ownership, but an intention to possess.' - CC v Moran, per _?_

Answer 59

Hoffman J

Question 60

Megarry and Wade 5 parts of intention to possess

Answer 60

- intention to possess, not to dispossess - intention to exclude the world, at large - intention to possess, not to own - intention for the time being, to possess the land for own benefit - intention must be manifested clearly

Question 61

how is an intention to possess generally deciphered?

Answer 61

deduced from the acts making up factual possession

Question 62

Case example for 'intention for the time being to possess the land'

Answer 62

Lambeth LBC v Blackburn 2001