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 where (emphasis added):

a. the land to which the application

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll