The landowner, Pye, lost the case. Pye tried to argue that the interpretation placed on the legislation by the House of Lords breached its human rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights ('the ECHR'). However, because the ECHR had not been incorporated into English law at the critical time, that argument did not succeed. Instead, Pye took the case to Europe and sued the UK government for compensation.

Before Pye's challenge was decided, the issue came before the High Court in Beaulane Properties Limited -v- Palmer ( previously covered in May's legal update). By this time, the Human Rights Act 1998 had incorporated the ECHR into English law. In Beaulane, the landowner argued that the meaning of 'possession' as interpreted in Pye -v- Graham should not be applied in a way that would breach its Article 1 rights. The High Court agreed. 'Possession' was given a very particular meaning. It had to be 'adverse' in the sense that occupation has to be inconsistent with the use or intended use of the land by the owner. This effectively prevented a landowner losing his title to someone he did not know was in occupation or whom he was happy to leave in occupation until he needed possession of the land.

The European Court has now published its judgment in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Limited -v- The United Kingdom. Echoing the High Court's view, the European Court upheld Pye's complaint. It concluded that the legislation did indeed infringe Pye's Article 1 rights, it was disproportionate and because no compensation was payable to the landowner, it could not be justified. The European Court also observed that the changes introduced by the Land Registration Act 2002 go some way to addressing these deficiencies.

Comment

• The Human Rights Act 1998 (which came into effect on 2 October 2000) is not retrospective. Those who have obtained possessory title by adverse possession prior to 2 October 2000, will not lose their title as a result of this decision.
• The Land Registration Act 2002 now makes it far harder for a registered owner to lose title inadvertently through adverse possession.
• For those occupiers who have yet to obtain possessory title and need to rely on possession between 2 October 2000 and 13 October 2003 (when the Land Registration Act 2002 took effect) Beaulane and Pye -v- United Kingdom are likely to prevent them from doing so.
• Article 41 of the ECHR permits the European Court to award compensation to a party whose rights have been infringed. The decision may open the way for other dispossessed landowners to bring such claims against the Government. It remains to be seen how many will attempt to do so.