header-logo header-logo

Reasonable belief in adverse possession

03 June 2022 / Richard Oughton
Issue: 7981 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
83601
Any ten years will do: Richard Oughton hails the return of clarity & common sense to claims for adverse possession
  • In claiming title by adverse possession of registered land upon the ground of an uncertain boundary, a party must reasonably believe that they own the disputed land for ten years.
  • As a result of two decisions of the Court of Appeal, it has previously been unclear whether any ten years could be relied upon, or if the ten years had to be immediately before the application to the Land Registry.
  • The recent decision of the First-tier Tribunal in Crook v Zurich has decisively resolved the point by holding that any ten years’ belief is sufficient.

The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) prospectively restricted the acquisition of title by adverse possession to registered land, save in three specific cases, although in each of these cases, the period of adverse possession is reduced from twelve to ten years. The only important case is para 5(4) of Sch 6, LRA 2002 which applies

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll