Facts

The claimants sought to establish possessory title to 57 acres of land with development potential in one of the most desirable residential areas in Berkshire, which they had continued to occupy after the expiry of a succession of grazing agreements. They turned cattle onto, and harrowed, rolled and fertilised, the land. The land was already fenced and the claimants ensured that it remained effectively enclosed and barred to the public by maintaining the hedges, ditches and fences, and retaining the key to the gate.

The claimants admitted that they had intended to use the land for grazing until they were requested not to. They also admitted that they would have paid for the use of it. The Court of Appeal took the view that the claimants' own evidence confirmed that they did not have the requisite intention to possess the land.

Issue

Did the claimants have the requisite intention to possess the grazing land?

Decision

The claimants had done things that they had had no right to do under their grazing agreement. They had exercised exclusive physical control over, and were, quite plainly, in factual possession of, the disputed land.

The House of Lords ruled that squatters need not have a long-term intention to acquire title to, or to own, the land, but must show that their possession of the land was 'adverse' to the interests of the paper owner. They need only prove an intention to exclude the paper owner so far as is reasonably possible and the fact that the claimants would have been willing to pay for the use of the land was not inconsistent with that intention.

Comment

The Land Registration Act 2002 is expected to come into force on 13 October 2003. It makes wholesale changes to the law on adverse possession in relation to registered land and will make it much harder for squatters to acquire title to properties that have been registered at the Land Registry.

Case references

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30

Source: Wragge & Co September 2002

 © In-House Lawyer