This is a very important decision. It will be remembered that there has been long-running litigation over this, with decisions going all the way to the CA, HL, ECJ, and now – finally – to the ECHR. The Pye litigation involved extremely valuable residential development land which had originally been let on a grazing agreement. But, the occupier remained in possession when the agreement ended and 14 years later claimed adverse possession. The claim for adverse possession was upheld by the HL, but that decision was then taken to Europe on human rights grounds. The ECJ held that the effect of LA 1980 and LRA 1925 was to allow a landowner’s ‘possessions’ to be taken away from him without compensation and, as such, was a breach of Article 1.

However, the ECHR has now overturned the ECJ decision, holding that the statutory regime of adverse possession was ‘proportionate’. The end result of this is that old-style adverse possession is still possible and has not been outlawed by Europe.

Do not forget that LRA 2002 came into force on 13 October 2003. It replaced the 12-year period of LRA 1925 and LA 1980 with a ten-year period (and a requirement to serve notice). Accordingly, Pye is not relevant if the period of adverse posession relied on ends after 13 October 2003. But Pye is relevant for all claims under the previous, 12- year, regime – whether the land is registered or unregistered (while Pye involved registered land it seems clear that the same principles apply to unregistered land).

Many claims have been put on hold pending the outcome of this litigation and we now have a clear, and final, decision. The 12-year adverse possession can be sufficient to establish title. JA Pye v UK [2007] ECHR 700. © Practical Lawyer