header-logo header-logo

05 February 2009
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Factual possession

William Byrne sheds some light on uncertainties in adverse possession

Just outside Wymondham in Norfolk there stands a now derelict animal feed mill. The mill sits on the northern four acres of a 10-acre plot. The remaining six or so acres to the south (identified at trial as “the orange land”) bounds open farm land on three sides and, since at least the 1960s, was traditionally cultivated by a local farmer with permission from the mill owners.

In March 1974, the claimant, J Alston & Sons Limited, purchased a local farm and was given the opportunity to farm the orange land with the permission of the mill owner, Barkers & Lee Smith (Norfolk) Limited. Barkers nevertheless wanted to retain the ability to expand the mill into it should the need arise. They had no wish to cross swords with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and, to this end, they insisted upon written confirmation from Alan Alston, the owner of the J Alston & Sons, that he would possess the land as a “mere licensee, paying no rent” and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll