header-logo header-logo

23 April 2009 / Elizabeth Fitzgerald , John Summers
Issue: 7366 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

To own or not to own

John Summers & Elizabeth Fitzgerald consider the impact of Ofulue

It is an important and well known rule of evidence that communications which are expressed to be “without prejudice”, and which are made between parties to a dispute for the purposes of settling the dispute, cannot generally be admitted in evidence.

In Ofulue & Anor v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] All ER (D) 119 (Mar) the House of Lords considered the extent to which it was permissible to rely on a “without prejudice” statement written with a view to settling earlier proceedings in the context of an adverse possession claim in which the “without prejudice” statement was said to constitute an acknowledgement of title which stopped time running.

The facts

Mr and Mrs Ofulue had been the registered freehold proprietors of 61 Coborn Road since 1976. In 1981 they went to Nigeria and let the property to tenants. In 1981, Mr Bossert and his daughter were let into occupation by one of the tenants, Ms Osborne. In 1989

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll