In today's legal world, where the provisions of HRA 1998 have to be taken into account, it is no longer acceptable for the law to unfairly deprive landowners of their property, unless they are given adequate compensation.

We discussed this point more fully in our May issue (p16). In particular, we mentioned the case of Beaulane [2005], where it was successfully argued that adverse possession was an unlawful deprivation of property (in breach of Article 1). Whilst that is only a High Court decision, it is seen as having largely anticipated the forthcoming decision of the ECJ in Pye v Graham (referred to the ECJ by the HL).

HRA 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000. Accordingly, the likely outcome will be that adverse possession cannot apply to occupation arising after that date, although it may possibly survive in respect of occupation prior to that date. Thus, a squatter who can show 12 years' adverse possession pre-October 2000 may still be able to get an adverse possession claim off the ground.

Needless to say, many practitioners are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the ECJ decision. In the meantime, it is worth noting that there have been three more reported adverse possession claims; none have dealt directly with the HRA 1998 point, but all have found in favour of the landowner (and not the squatter). All three involved situations in which the landowner had previously allowed the squatter onto the land with consent, with the squatter then arguing that the occupation had subsequently become 'adverse'. Needless to say, all can be distinguished on their own facts, but the overall conclusion one reaches when looking at these cases is - irrespective of the outcome in the ECJ - that the tide has turned and that the courts are becoming increasingly less sympathetic to squatters' claims. For a review of the latest cases see article in [2005] 152 Property Law Journal 13. © Practical Lawyer