Fiche Property Law :

Program:

Introduc/on
PART 1: Ownership and property rights
PART 2: Tenures and estates
PART 3: Possession of Land (equity)
PART 4: Methods of Acquisi/on
PART 5: Non-Possessory Land Use Rights
PART 6: Registra/on of Title.

PART 1: Ownership and property rights.

I. Defini/on of property

Real property: Between an individual and a thing, binding against everyone

Personal property: Between individuals, binding against the person(s) concerned.

Real property’s defini1on of Blackstone: “the sole and despo@c dominion (monopoly of the right) which one
man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other
individual in the universe.”

• Na@onal Provincial Bank v Ainsworth, House of Lords [1965]:

The husband was the sole owner of the house where he lived with his wife. He gave his house as a mortgage in
exchange of borrowing 1000 pounds from the bank to start his company. Years later, he cheated on his wife, fell
behind payments and the bank sought possession of the house.
Was the wife having a property right or a personal right in the house?
The wife had no real right on the house but only a personal right against her husband, so she could not keep the
house.

Lord Wilberforce noted that: “the wife has no specific right against her husband to be provided with any
par/cular house, nor to remain in any par/cular house (…) the wife's rights as regards the occupa@on of her
husband’s property, are essen/ally of a personal kind.”

4 characteris/cs of Lord Wilberforce for an interest can fall into the category of real property right: (DICH)
- Definable
- Iden/fiable by third par/es
- capable in its nature of assump/on by third par/es
- have some degree of permanence or stability.

II. Defini/on of a land.

A) Things aYached to, or part and parcel of, the land.

Property rights include not only the house on the surface of the land, but also:
- A right to control of the area above and below the surface of land
- Anything that is part / parcel of the land
- Any things aYached to the land

• Bennis v McMahon [2002] Colchester County Court.

Mr Bennis was ordered to pay the couple he sold the house he had a property right in £1,166 in compensa/on
for the items (tower rail aYached to the central hea/ng, signs like name and nb of the house, paving stones
from the garden) he removed as these items were part of the scope of property right = they were aYached to
the land.

• Elistone Ltd v Morris [1997] UKHL 15.

Elistone had a PR in a land, where Morris was living in a bungalow and paid an annual fee. The bungalow was
res/ng on concrete pillars aYached to the ground. Elistonek wanted to remove Morris from the land.
HL said: the bungalow “could not be taken down and re-erected elsewhere. It could only be removed by a
process of demoli/on” = therefore, it was part of the land and not just a “fixture” or an accessory.

B) Natural things growing or living on the land.

- Plants, crops, wildflowers, growing on a land are part of the land and belong to the owner (leaseholder or
freeholder).
- An animal on a land does not give the animal’s owner a right on this land.
- A wild animal could give a qualified right on a land if it proved that there is a right per industriam.

• Borwick Development Solu@ons Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd [2020].

BDS had a property right in a land where there were lakes in which there were fish. He exploited the fishes by
allowing anglers to fish in exchange for a fee. BDS fell on payment, and the land was taken by the mortgagee,
who sold the land to CWF without men/oning the lakes. BDS claimed an absolute ownership of the land. Could
the former owner of a land claim ownership of its lakes and the fish within it?
HL: fish are wild animals, independently of the /me or circumstances (Buckle v Holmes). One cannot claim an
absolute claim over wild animals while they are alive. However, one could claim a “qualified” ownership over
the wild animal if they have right per industriam (as a result of his work which is valid as long as he has
sufficient CT over the animals as to amount to possession of them) or right ra/onale soli (a landowner have a
right over the wild animals on his land)
However, here, since the land was sold the dis/nc/on did not have to be made, but it’s sure that there is no
absolute ownership over the land.

C) Things lost and then found on or in the land.

A treasure is defined by the Treasure Act 1996, s. 1 as:

- Any object at least 300 years old which has metallic content of which 10% by weight is precious metal or 10
coins 300 y old.
- Any outstanding historical/ archaeological or/ cultural importance object at least 200 yo.
- If the treasure’s owner is not iden/fied, the treasure vests in the Crown.

1. The party with the earliest property right win the PR of the object found, if no owner is found, the treasure
vests in the Crown.

• Fletcher v Chief Constable of Leicestershire:

Fletcher found a box with 18,000 pounds in the unoccupied flat he was renova/ng, the police said that the bow
was placed here by a criminal who wanted to get it back aher. The order was made for the money to be
forfeited (gagée) under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s. 298(2)(b).
Can one have the property right on an object that was placed on his land by a criminal?
No, the real owner of the object was not found so it became the property of the crown.

2. If one occupies a building or a thing on the land and manifests his inten/on to control the buildings or the
things in it or the thing on the land, then this person has a PR superior to the finder of the object.

• Parker v Bri@sh Airways Board [1982] QB 1004:

Mr. Parker found a gold bracelet in the lounge of BA and said that if no one claims it it should be returned to
him. Aher 7 months, no one claimed it but the bracelet was sold to someone else at 850 pounds. Did BA own
the bracelet found on its building?
NO, it’s not because a thing is on one’s land last that one has property rights on it. If a person does not manifest
an inten/on to exercise control on this object, then it’s the property of the finder.

3.If the finder was a trespasser on one’s land, then, as a maYer of ‘public policy’, one will have a property right
superior to that of the finder.

• Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2001]:

Costello was in a possession of a car he was suspected to have stolen; the police retained the car to establish its
lawful ower but found no one. Can a stolen object be owned by the stealer?
Yes: “possession, whether obtained lawfully or not, vested in the possessor a possessory /tle which was good
against the world save anyone seong up or claiming under a beYer /tle”
Consequences:
- The stealer has a property right in equity, which is weaker so if the lawful owner claims a right in the property
he will have it.

4. For object found IN THE LAND: The one who owns the land has a PR superior to the finder of the object (but
s/ll weaker than the original owner) ≠ BA case (object found on the land).

• Waverley Borough Council v Fletcher [1996]:

The Borough Council had a PR in a park open to the public. Fletcher found a medieval good brooch 9 inches
before the surface, that was NOT a treasure (so not to the crown). The council claimed that the brooch was lost
and found on ITS land (beYer /tle). Fletcher had to give the brooch.

Conclusion: When a thing is aYached to OR found in a land, the owner of the land has the beYer /tle.

PART 2: Tenures and estates.

I. From the past: The tenure system.

All land in the England belongs to the Crown.

- The Crown’s own occupa/on is called the demesne land.
- The rest of the land is granted to individuals: the feudal tenants (freehold owners).
S/ll the same today but most landowners are unaffected by their rela/onship with the Crown.
BUT:

- If someone doesn’t have a will, the last owner registered recover the property of the land. In France the town
inherit it.
- Before, the King needed to look at his tenants in chief (Lords and Bishops), who would look at all the hierarchy.
The feudal system became standardize, and each set were called a tenure (“I hold my land from”)

There were 3 types of tenure at CL based upon services:

Free tenures:
- Spiritual Tenures: Lords and Bishops => hold the land for the king
- Tenures in Chivalry: military tenures => hold the land for the Spiritual Tenures
- Tenures in Socage: Peasants for agricultural services => hold the land for the Tenures in Chivalry.
- Villeinage (copyhold): held by common laborers (not free and independent so slaves etc):
Unfree tenure.

New categories of tenures could always be created (subinfeuda/on), in return for services and tenants could
alienate by subs/tu/on without the lord’s consent.
à MaYer resolved by the statute Quia Emptores 1290 which prohibited the aliena/on by subinfeuda/on
(couldn’t create a new category of tenures => except by the Crown bc he is the lord pyramid).
- It’s s@ll in force today, can’t be removed and ensures that all land held by a subject is held in tenure of the
Crown, directly or indirectly. Today, the lord of the fee (land) is a successor in 1tle to the person that was a lord
in 1290.

II. The Tenures Aboli@on Act 1660

The system of tenures and land holding in return of services, fell into decay long before being legally abolished.
Aher the Restora/on of the Monarchy (Charles I, Oliver Cromwell), the Tenures Aboli@on Act
converted all tenures into free and common socage (except frankalmoign and copyhold).

2 different doctrines:

- The doctrine of tenures: all the land is held directly or indirectly if the Crown is one or other of the various
tenants. If you have a land, you have to ask these ques/ons: What are the terms according to which you hold a
land) (not used in common prac/ce today)
- The doctrine of estates: the land held in tenure is also held for an estate (= for a period of /me based on your
“statuts”)
- for how long are you holding the land? S/ll used in prac/ce for:
- freehold estates or
- leasehold estates

Today, we have landowners that hold the land for the Crown.

The land might be held for different period of /mes ( a period of /me = an estate):
- Land granted for the tenant’s life.
- In tail (as long as the tenant or any of his descendants are alive) - cousins, brother, child, etc.
- In fee simple. (as long as the tenant or any of the tenant’s heirs – whether descendants or not- are alive) -
only the children.

Today if you want to acquire a land:

- Heritage from the past: tenures => Freehold (based on the feudal structure)
- Since 1290: Leasehold (based on contract law) => created by the gov.

III. Modern Property law : Property Act 1925.

System of estate is amended, there is 2 types of Estate :

1. Freehold estates:

- freehold as a formal tenure or as the estate (period) or both

- right of aliena/on by will or intervivos but subject to disposi/on if a person fails to make reasonable financial
provision on death or if one is liable before the court
- When buying a land, you have it for an unlimited period of /me so you can either sell it or let it stay in the
family.

• Kelsey v Imperial Tobacco Co Ltd (1957):

Freehold gives the right over what is in, on and over the land. (like on the roof or the air above the property so
you can forbid drone to fly over your house)

The owners right above the air space above the land and buildings are limited to the height
which is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment, within limits, he can take proceedings
for trespass and nuisance or both.

• Wilson and Waddell 1876: Right over someone’s land.

When u have a freehold the freeholder is subject to such rights so u can dispose of minerals which are in or
over the land (mineral that u can find on the top of a building).

Law of Nuisance and Negligence - A freehold owner can sue for damages or seek injunc/on for trespass,
nuisance, interven/on etc. It some/mes happens that a landowner wished to undertake work over the land
that can only be carried out by going on in a neighbor’s land => if he refuses to consent, the landowner may
apply to the court for an access order to allow him to do works that are reasonably necessary for the
preserva@on of all or any parts of the land. (Swimming pools are not necessary to the land)

Liability in tort: Omission.

- Rylands v Fletcher 1868 HL: a landowner might be liable in tort for injuries on subpar/es by acts and
omissions (ex : water that escaped and flooded the neighbors land : liable bc you are responsible for the water
on your land).
- Tarry v Ashton 1876: If doing some work on a lamp projec/ng over a highway (troYoir) and fell on someone,
you are liable.

Liability in tort: Nuisance.

- Bland v Yates 1914: Defendant was making a usual and excessive collec/on of manure (fumier) which aYracts
flies and causes a smell: he was liable in the ground of nuisance.
- Tetley v Chihy 1986: if you permit someone to go kart racing on your land, if this racing causes nuisance, you
are liable for nuisance.
- Delaware Mansibus v Westminster CC 2001: If you fail to take reasonable steps to prevent being cau/on of
tree roots into your neighbor’s land, you are liable for nuisance.

The owners’ rights over the air space above the lands and buildings are limited to the height necessary for their
ordinary use and enjoyment, within this limit, the owner can take proceedings for trespass and also for
nuisance or both
Ex: branches of ur neighbor’s trees is on ur land > it is a trespass and u can ask the judge to remove the tree
Ex: An extractor fan > if it’s on ur neighbor land it is forbidden

. But the Crown is en/tled to all gold, silver and petrol found (Petroleum Act) + treasure (Treasure Act).

3 types of Freehold Estates:

Fee simple: always existed in English law.

- can be given to anyone who is en/tled to in his or her quality of owner’s heir
- most substan/al estate which can exist in land
- A tenant in fee simple enjoys all the advantages of absolute ownership: the fee simple tenant powers of
enjoying, using and abusing. the land is limited by many ways in statutes and the rights of the navy (same as
France), but they are not limited by any inherent newness in the concept of property in land.
Life estate: always existed in English law.
Fee tail: only to the lineal descendants (heirs): introduced by statute in 1925 and can no
longer be created. So, if you buy a Freehold look at what you are buying => change the rule.

2. Leasehold Estate.

By contract to the freehold leaseholder that have a maximum dura/on so the tenant may hold the land for a
fixed term and dura/on (so limit of /me). Leaseholder must pay a fee (annual ground rent) to the owner of the
freehold estate.

• Lace v Chantler, Court of Appeal, 11 Feb. 1944:

Leasehold will end by “the end of war” is equivocal, it is not a fix term, not a defined term, there is a need of
certainty.
 • Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-opera@ve Ltd, Supreme Court [2011] UKSC 52:
If the term is not defined, the judge can render the lease void for uncertainty or requalify as an “estate for life”
for 99 years pursuant to s149(6) LPA 1925.

à We used to pay a ground rent to the freeholder.

à With the leasehold u buy the property but not the land (approval of freeholder to do works in the garden)
but if u buy freehold the garden is yours bc u own everything, not only the house, but also the ground where
the house is built.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022:

• Freeholders (landlords) are no longer able to make financial demands for ground rent on leaseholders
(not tenants).
The one who had the freehold cannot ask the one who had the leasehold to pay the rent (bc as a leasehold u
did not own the land so had to pay a rent)
The leaseholders have not to pay anymore the ground rent. Only for new leases contrac/ng aher the Act went
in force.

However, a ground rent is different from A service charge (maintenance and running costs of the building). So,
you can s/ll have to pay a service charge. If freeholder breaches this Act of parliament, it is a civil offence.
(penalty between £500-£30 000).

Hierarchy :
• Freeholder: owns the land and everything in and on it
• Leaseholder : owns the building
• Tenant: rent an apartment in the building from the leaseholder

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill (2024): Is currently in the House of Commons but should be adopted by
the summer.

PART 3: Possession of Land (equity).

Registra/on: provides the legal /tle of the land. If the land is not registered, in terms of legal value, the land will
be in equity and not in law so weaker than it should be.
Diff btw the system of registered /tle and the tradi/onal system (feudal) are quite substan/ve + includes 4
effects/differences:
• Registra/on vests the legal /tle in the registered proprietor – whether or not there has been a valid
transfer to that purchaser.
• The system of register /tle abandons the principle that no one can pass a beher @tle than their own
(+ Equity /tle weaker)
 • The system of priori/es for registered land is en@rely statutory and is completely different from the
rules applicable to unregistered land.
o Acts of Parliament VS Unregistered land
o Different between owning something at law (statute vs equity)
• A registered /tle is guaranteed by the State in the sense that the Land Registry will indemnify that
person of their loss. (If the Land Registry makes a mistake in registered a land which was not made to
be registered it is his own liability and you can have liability.)

I. Introduc/on.

Land Registra/on Act 2002:

This act employed different concept:

• Registrable estate:
This act provides that certain legal estates may be registered with their own /tles.
Once the estate is registered, it is called registered estate.

• Registrable disposi/ons:
Certain disposi/ons of a registered estate have to be registered to have effect at law (and not in equity). Eg:
transfers of the legal estate, crea/on of legal estate.

• Protec/on of interest:

3 methods to protect interest in land:

- Legal charges = do not have their own /tle, it is aYached to another /tle. However, you have registered the
name of the proprietor of the charge.
- Burden of many interests which might be protected by the entry of a no@ce in the register
- Restric/on may be entered = it will regulate the circumstances in which this posi/on of a registered estate or
charge may be the subject of an entry in the register. It usually applies to trusts in land.

• Overriding interests = all the estate, rights and interests which are not protected on the register in any
way, but which nonetheless override the first registra/on.

II. The first registra/on can be voluntary or compulsory.

1. The LRA Act 2002 makes the difference between those types of registra/on.

a) Voluntary first registra/on.

A person who owns or is en/tled to have any of a registered estate may apply to be registered as proprietor
with its own /tle.
In the LRA act, there is a list of all the unregistered estate that can be registered:
- the freehold estate in land
- a lease granted for a term of more than 7 years (and these 7 years have not to be expired)
- A discon/nuous lease of any dura/on
- Rent charge
- Franchise (in land law it is a right granted by the crown to hold a market or a fair)
- Profit à prendre

The crown was not able to register the land that was held by the king or the queen in domain as the sovereign
or the lord paramount. Under the LRA act, the queen or the king may grant an estate in fee simple absolute to
herself in order to make an applica/on for the voluntary registra/on of the estate.

b) Compulsory first registra/on.

it is an obliga/on provided by the act.

The LRA act has extended the triggering events especially to include leases.

4 categories of disposi/ons required to be registered, in transfers and grants of or out of an unregistered legal
estate which is either a freehold or a leasehold of which more than 7 years are not expired. As triggering affects
you have:

- A transfer of the freehold estate in land which happens by any legal means different from an opera@on of
law. (Eg: the freeholder dies: no opera/on at law, landowner has not sold the land.)
- A transfer of the leasehold estate in land other than by opera@on of law. (Eg: same thing by the lease holder.
Ithe assignment of a mortgage term.)
- All the transfers and grants in connec@on with a secure tenant’s right to buy. (Eg: where you have a secure
tenant, and this tenant has a right to buy)
- In certain cases where you have a legal mortgage on a freehold estate or a leasehold estate which has 7 years
to run from the date of the mortgage, there is a requirement to register the mortgaged estate.

2. Effect of the non-registra/on land that is meant to be registered (compulsory F R)

è a statutory duty to register what you own. The period for registra/on is of 2 months and this period begins
with the date of the triggering event. This date might be extended by any interested person and if the registrar
(head of the land registry) and you apply to the register. If the registrar is sa/sfied with the reason for
expanding the extension, the registrar may by order provide for the period of registra/on to end on such date
or such date and it is specified in the order. If a disposi/on that triggers the requirement of registra/on isn’t
made that disposi@on becomes void as regard as the transfer, grand or crea@on of the legal estate.

3. Applica/on for first regula/on

The procedure or applica/on for the first registra/on is prescribed by the rule and those rules provide details as
to the form to be used and the doc that should be submiYed in making the applica/on.
There is a duty on the applicant to disclose the riding interest which could affect the estate.
They will not be registered but they will be noted in the registra/on so everyone could see it.
When the registrar examines a /tle on applica/on for first registra/on, he may make searches and inquiries +
can give no/ces to other persons + can adver/se the applica/on if he has a doubt.
If there is an objec/on to the applica/on and that the objec/on is not groundless, then the registrar must refer
the maYer to the first /er tribunal.
If there is no objec/on but the registrar refuses to register a land (either all the land or the par/cular /tles in
the land), no dispute can be referred to the tribunal, and there is no right to appeal the registrar’s decision.
Therefore, the only remedy for a party who is aggrieved by the decision is to make an applica/on for judicial
review.

a) The effect of first registra@on

Sec@on 10 of the Land Registra@on Act of 2002

Absolute @tle:
Title Absolute on the HM Land Registry /tle deeds means that there is no way that ownership of your property
can be legally contested or claimed against. A defect in /tle is not an obstacle to registra/on, provided the
registrar considers that it will not cause the holding under it to be disturbed.
For leasehold: a person may be registered with an absolute /tle to leasehold land provided that the registrar is
sa/sfied that the applicant has a good /tle.

There is a list of 14 unregistered interest which can override the first registra/on:
• A lease granted for a term of 7 years or less which is not required to be registered.
• An interest belonging to a person in actual occupa/on.
• A legal easement of a profit a prendre : The only easement and profit a prendre that can override the
first registra/on are those which are legal (does not apply to equitable interest)
• All the customers rights: rights usually owned by the local community
• It can be a public right: the public has rights over land (like a highway + all rivers)
• Mineral rights such as coal (difficult to register bc do not know how long it will last) => only no/fied not
registered.
• Franchise: can be voluntary but here when is not registered or noted
• If the Crown rent it is a right to rent which is reserve to the Crown on the gran/ng of any freehold
estate.
• You hold a land + have a river => you do not own the riverbank but the city will.

Qualified @tle
PreYy rare in the UK + effect of registering a qualified @tle is the same as registering an absolute @tle. The only
difference is that it does not affect the enforcement of the specified estate or interest.

Possessory @tle
The registrar may register a person with possessory /tle if 2 condi/ons are met:
• The person is either in actual possession of the land or in receipt of the ransom profit of the land.
• There is no other @tle with which this person can be registered.
Effect: the registra/on has the same effect has the one with an absolute /tle except that it does not affect the
enforcement of any estate that is invest to or in deroga/on of the proprietor's /tle if that estate right or interest
subsisted at the /me of first registra/on.
Ex: the applicant was registered with a possessory 1tle which he owes as a freehold and it subsequently
happens that the applicant only had a leasehold estate, the holder of the freehold will be en1tled to assert in
the state when the applicant’s lease expired.

Good Leasehold
A lessee (locataire) will be registered with a good leasehold /tle rather than an absolute /tle where the
registrar is not able to approve the lease /tle to grant the lease. In this situa/on, you can only give a good
leasehold /tle.
Effect: the registra/on of a good leasehold /tle has the same effect as a registra/on as a good /tle except that
it does not affect the enforcement of an estate right or interest affec@ng or in deroga@on of the @tle of the
lesser of the lease.
If you have the lesser that has no /tle to the land for which he grants a lease, the registra/on of the lease as a
good leasehold /tle would not prevent the true owner of the land from evic/ng the lessee.

4. List of triggering Events (only applies to compulsory registra/on):

Land Registra@on Act 2002, s.4:

II. Indefeasibility

In the /meline you have registered your land, and it might be at problem of the registra/on itself: Can you
complain about the registra/on made by the registrar of not? In principle, the registrar is indefeasible.

I. The principle of indefeasibility

Altera@on of the register: the registra/on can be rec/fied either by the court or by the registrar himself.
If this rec/fica/on affects the /tle of the register of the proprietor, the proprietor would be en/tled to claim
compensa/on for his or her loss.
If the registrar is not altered or rec/fied by the mistake, he will be en/tled to compensa/on.

Schedule 4 (LRA Act 2002)

A state guarantee for the /tles registered. Not only the register proprietor but also anyone feeling with the
proprietor (lessee etc.) will be rely on the register (if a mistake in the register can ask for all protec/on and
compensa/on). This makes the registrar liable.
If the dispute is referred to the first /ers tribunal, the tribunal may direct the registrar either to cancel the
applica/on or to give effect to the applica/on in whole or in part if objec/ons have not been made.
The judge can take 2 direc/on:
• Direc/on may include a condi/on that is specified entry made on the register for any /tle affected.
• Direc/on to reject any future applica/on of a specified kind by a named party to the proceeding, either
uncondi/onally or unless this party sa/sfies specified condi/ons.

Altera/on by a court order : 3 reasons to alter registra/on

- Correc@ng a mistake.
Ex : land register but the same land has already been sold by the steel or (mistake in the names)
Ex : when have a person register as the proprietor in the register but the land belong to another person
- Upda@ng th register
- Giving effect to any estate/right/interest excepted from the effect of registra@on.

Altera/on by the registrar : 5 reasons to alter registra/on

- Correc@ng a mistake
- Upda@ng the register
- Giving effect to any estate/right/interest excepted from the effect of registra@on
- Removing a superfluous entry : can override the second one. It enables the registrar to
remove superfluous entries as where a lease or a charge has been determined.
- Essen/al to have a reflec/on of the repe//on of land at any given /me (know who
has a lease, who has a freehold, a franchise, a profit a prendre etc.)

- Compensa@on : anyone can be en/tled to receive compensa/on from the registrar if he suffers a loss
by reason of the altera/on of the register or where the register is rec/fied against a proprietor for
forged (usage de faux) disposi/on
Ex : buy a land and the neighbor used a false document to say that he is the proprietor
and the register is modified in that sense. Even if the register is rec/fied in favour of an applicant, the applicant
may s/ll suffer a loss if in the circumstances the rec/fica/on affects rights and interest created in the period of
the mistake and it’s rec/fica/on.

PART 4: Methods of acquisi@on.

You can acquire legal estate or interest dependently (freehold) or independently (leasehold).

I. Formality Requirements for the Crea/on / Transfer of Legal Estates or Interests in land:

• Contract where the vendor and the purchaser entered the contract on sale of the legal estate (whether
freehold or leasehold). The purchaser usually pays a deposit.
• Comple@on: contract is executed by the vendor making the deposi/on. The purchase money is paid
(less the deposit already paid) and the purchaser takes possession of the land at that /me.
• Registra@on: new proprietor or owner of the leasehold or freehold register to become the official
proprietor / owner. The legal /tle does not vest in the purchaser un/l registra/on. However, equitable
rights may arise from the moment from which the par@es have entered the contract (doctrine of
an/cipa/on)

1. Contract

To be valid, a contract for the sale or other disposi/on of an interest in land are provided by sec@on 2 of the
Law of Property Act 1989 :
• Has to be wriYen : can be a single document signed by both par/es or separate ones signed by one
party and then exchanged
• Must contain all the terms of the par/es expressly agreed : in a signed doc or separate doc
incorporated as reference (annexe) or the contract will be void
• May delay the contract coming into force.
The requirement for a valid contract or sell or other disposi/on of interest in land are provided by sec@on 2 of
the Law of Property 1989 (ci-dessus)
This act replaced the requirements of the Law Property ACT 1925

A) Must be in wri@ng.

Before 1989 in case of prac/cal exam, the wriYen contract was not an obliga/on and u can sell a land by an oral
contract (not valid aher 1989) and this sec/on 2 of the 89 Act has increased the formality requirements for
contract and aggravated the consequences of noncompliance.

è The wriYen contract may take one or two forms:

- A singular doc signed by both par/es.
- Separate documents each signed by one of the par/es and then exchanged.

The document(s) must contain all of the terms expressly agreed by the par/es and these terms can be
contained in a signed document or in a separate document that is incorporated by reference (like an annexe)
 In that case u have to write in the contract that there is an appendice otherwise it is void

McCausland v Sec/on 2 applies to all contracts for the crea@on or transfer of an interest in land.
Duncan Lawrie Court held that sec/on 2 also applies to a varia/on of contract (if have several doc). As a result, unless the
(1997) varia/on complies with sec/on 2, the terms of the contract as originally agreed remain enforceable. In that case,
an aYempt to vary the comple/on date in the contract failed for not comple/ng with sec/on 2.

Sec/on 2 applies to equitable interest and therefore would apply to a contract for a transfer of an exis@ng
equitable interest in land.
Sec/on 2 applies only on contract for the sale or any disposi@on of an interest in land.

Pih V PHH Asset Does not apply to contract that do not have a disposing purpose even if that is the effect of the contract.
Management Ltd Sec/on 2 does not apply to a lock-out agreements (agreements not to nego/ate with others) which are
(1994) enforceable where they have a definite end date

Sec/on 2 does not apply to a contract that itself disposes of an interest in land and effects an immediate
deposi/on bc such a contract is not a promise to make a disposi/on in the future.

Spiro v Glencrown While the grant of an op/on to purchase must comply with sec/on 2 of 1989, the exercise of the op@on is a
Proper@es (1991) unilateral act by the purchaser and does not have to comply with sec@on 2.

- The contract by correspondence:

Under sec/on 2, contracts by correspondence are not possible since they do not meet the requirement for an
exchange required by sec/on 2.
However, correspondence may produce a contract when it results in the crea/on of a contract signed by both
par/es.

B) Second element of the contract: An exchange.

Commission for the “the act of exchange is a formal delivery by each party into the actual or construc/ve possession of the other with
New Towns v the inten/on that the par/es will become actually bound when exchange occurs, but not before”.
Cooper (1995)

C) Last condi@on: A signature.

Sec/on 2 requires that the doc or docs (varia/on of contract) must be signed by each party of the contract or by
their authorized representants.

Green v Ireland A /ght name at the end of an email cons@tutes a signature.

(2011)
Neocleous and an exchange of email containing automa/c footers with the sender's name where a party had added “many
another v Rees thanks”, at the end of the relevant text and before the footer (automa/c signature) was found enough to show an
(2019) authen@ca@on inten@on.

The Law Society commission during the Covid issued specific guidance on the use of signatures and especially
on the virtual execu/on documents.

• Electronic signature.
Since this guidance, common forms of the electronic signatures include a party typing her/his name into a
contract or an email copy pas@ng an image of his/her signature into the electronic version of the contract,
using a web-based E-signature plaoorm or using a touch screen to sign.
 • Virtual signature.
A signature by virtual means by contrast involves an ink signature on the final form of the agreed doc, then
scanned and emailed open in PDF, with the final agreed of the doc.
Reten/on of the original sign version of the doc is important as it may be required to prove the due execu/on.

The signature is required by each party of the contract and not by each party to the proposed sale of land.
In this case, the contract for sale stated that the husband and wife were to be joined purchasers, but the
contract was not signed by the wife. The husband argued to sign on her behalf, but he had no authority to do so
Rabiu v Marlbray Ltd (did not properly give her autorisa1on etc).
(2016) è was a valid contract btw the vendor and the husband, sec/on 2 didn’t not mean that the wife as a supposed
party to the contract also had to sign. The husband was assumed to sign for his wife.

D) Others.

à Executory contracts only.

Sec/on 2 only applies to executory contract and not to already executed contract, indeed, once a contract has
Tootal Clothing Ltd v been signed, it is not possible to claim that it does not comply with Sec@on 2.The court here will not permit
Guinea Property the validity of the transfer to be challenged for non-compliance of the contract with sec/on 2.
Management Ltd HOWEVER, non-compliance with sec/on 2 will s/ll prevent the enforcement of any aspects of the par/es’
[1992] agreement that remain executory.

à Do not apply to collateral contracts.

Principle: Sec/on 2 requires a contract for sale of land to contain all the terms agreed by the par/es. If a term is
omiYed in the contract, there is no contract, even if the contract is signed and wriYen according to sec/on 2.
However, sec@on 2 does not prevent the par@es from entering a composite transac@on, which consists of a
contract for sale of land and other separate or collateral contracts.

The challenge here for the transac/on consist in dis@nguishing between the cases where the par@es have
entered a composite transac@on from those in which an omihed term is part of the bargain for the transfer
of land.
If the par/es are commiYed to separate parts of their bargain in several separate contracts, then the purpose
itself of S2 is undermined.
However, S2 is also open to abuse by par@es who look around for expressly agreed terms which have not
found their way into the final form of land contract.
Why? Because the party in that situa/on try to escape from the bargain

2 situa/ons:
- If two contracts were separated from each other, independent, the requirement for sec/on 2 (1) would be
Grossman v sa/sfied. (so, the second or third contract needs to comply with S2)
Hooper [2001] - If considered as collateral contract, contracts dependent from each other, those requirements would not
EWCA 615 be sa/sfied ( S2 does not apply to the second contract.)

Can a contractual document be rec/fied to comply with S2?

Principle: When the par/es have reached an agreement, but the terms are not all recorded in the contract or
recorded wrongly, only the court may order a rec/fica/on for the document to comply with sec/on 2.
The court have the discre/on to determine the /me in which the contract will come into being.
This enable the court to take into account the possible effect of rec@fica@on on 3rd par@es who might enter a
transac@on btw the day of the original contract and the decision to rec@fy the contract.
 In this situa/on, it is established at the maYer of law that the rec/fica/on may be awarded by the court on the
basis of a common mistake è common agreement or inten/on of the par/es to contract on specific terms.
The situa/on that raises controversy is when a party asks for rec@fica@on but for a unilateral mistake. The
party who was not mistaken acted unconsciously.

A purchaser agreed to buy a flat, the price in which included the carpet and furniture (=were not included in both
wriYen contract and the vendor removed all the furniture). The contract was executed by the transfer of the
Robert Leonard lease and therefore as it is an execu/ve contract, the validity of the contract could no longer be ques@oned
Developments Ltd (sec/on 2 does not apply for an executed contract).
v Wright [1994] The court of appeal considered that there was no separate or collateral contract for the sale of the furniture. It
was part of one package for the sale of the flat.
So the court held that the contract should be rec/fied to conclude the omiYed term. A rec/fica/on has then been
allowed by the courts.
Oun v Ahmad When the wriYen document does not incorporate all the terms expressly agreed, by reason of a mistake in the
[2008] recording of the agreement, the court can rec/fy the wriYen document so as to incorporate all the terms
expressly agreed and then the document as rec/fied complies with sec/on 2.
Nevertheless, when the par@es expressly agree upon five terms of their agreement but decide that the 5th term
shall remain unrecorded in wri@ng, the result is that the wrihen document does not comply with sec@on 2 and
is of no effect.
One party cannot seek an order for rec/fica/on to the effect that the 5th term should be incorporated into the
wriYen document so that the wriYen document will then comply with sec/on 2 because there is no defect or
mistake.

Can proprietary estoppel be claimed?

Effect of non-compliance of sec/on 2, 3 possible ways to mi@gate the hardship:

• Rec/fica/on.
• Found if it is a collateral or separate contract.
• If it is a construc/ve trust (=orders the person unjustly enriched to transfer the property to the
intended party).

MC agreed in a leYer to grant a charge over his own home as a security for a loan contracted by M. Kinane. Kinane
provided the loan money but MC refused to grant the charge.
MC argued that he was under no contractual obliga/on to do so as the leYer was only singed by him and not by
Kinane => so doc not in compliance with sec@on 2.
Arden LJ explained how a proprietary estoppel could arise in cases where there is an agreement that does not
Kinane v Mackie- sa/sfy sec/on 2(1). In the ordinary case, the fact that the par/es have not yet sa/sfied the formali/es or have used
Conteh [2005] the ‘subject to contract’ label is an indica/on that they do not intend to be bound. But there can be other cases
where the promissor not only promises to create or transfer an interest in land but gives a ‘double assurance’ that
he will not rely on the failure to comply with statutory formali/es:
è If the defendant encourages the claimant (by words or conduct) to believe that the agreement for the disposi/on
of an interest in land (here a security interest) was valid and binding’
The Court found that the requirement for proprietary estoppel was met + a common inten@on of construc@ve
trust.
 There are three lessons to be drawn from this case:
1. At the conveyancing stage: Sec/on 2 is not sufficient to prevent oral agreements being relied upon by
either of the par/es aher the exchange of contracts. More conven/onal means (such as an en/re
agreement clause) should be used to guard against the possibility.
2. At the dispute stage: A party should not place too much confidence in Sec/on 2, even in circumstances
where the crea/on of a trust is not in issue and where there is a wriYen contract. The mere existence of a
Sahota v Priors wriYen contract will not prevent proprietary estoppel from opera/ng as long as the subject of the estoppel
[2019] can be framed as something other than a contractual term. That framing is more likely where the party to
whom the statement was made is not business-savvy.
3. In sale-and-leaseback contracts specifically: The ability to conceptually split “the contract” in two may
further weaken the protec/on that a seller has under Sec/on 2.

2. The Effect of the Contract

The Doctrine of An/cipa/on (”equity regards as done what ought to be done”) :

Lonsdale was under a contractual duty to sell the lease to Wash. He acquired an immediate interest in equity in land.
Wash v Lonsdale An equitable lease mirrored the lease that L has promised to grant W, the term of the promised lease was decisive.
[1882] LR 21 CG D Doctrine can apply whenever L is under a duty to give Walsh a property right, whether L duty arose under the
9 contract. To give the purchaser an interest in land, the purchaser must show that all the requirement to the contract
(including sec/on 2) have been met.

If the duty of the seller is to grant a lease >> equitable lease + to grant an easement >> equitable easement
I buy property and as soon as I buy it, I did not have legal property but just property in equity I sell it to
someone else.
NO !! Scoh v Whether an equitable interest held by the purchasers under a contractual sale allowed the purchaser before the
Southern Pacific comple/on of the contract itself to create property right in others.
Mortgages Ltd Mrs. ScoY wished to show because of proprietary estoppel opera/ng against the purchaser, she had acquired an
[2015] AC 385 equitable interest derived from the purchasers’ interest that was capable of binding a mortgagee, Mrs ScoY has to
show that she acquired a property right before the sale of the purchaser was completed. She therefore argued that her
property right in the land arose as soon as the purchaser acquired the equitable interest under the contract itself to
the purchaser.
The SC held that Mrs ScoY had not acquired such an equitable interest, her claim against the purchaser could give her
an equitable interest only at the laYer point when the sale contract was completed.
Is the mortgagee bind by the contract? The second purchaser has an equitable interest BUT it cannot bind any third
par@es un@l the comple@on of the contract.

II. Stage of comple/on

1. The comple@on by transfer or grant.

 When the seller has promised to transfer a legal estate or interest to the purchaser or to grant the purchaser a
legal estate or interest, the seller must therefore take steps to make that disposi/on to the purchaser. When the
contract is executed no ques@on of compliance with sec@on 2 can be raised.
Requires the execu/on of a deed (acte notarié) : provided by the Law of Property Act.

o Effect #1 of the comple@on: the nature of the purchaser’s equitable interest changes on comple/on.

Jerome v Kelly [2004] “The equitable interest can be viewed as passing to the buyer in stages, as /tle is made and accepted and as the
1 WLR 1409 purchaser price is paid in full” (Lord Walker).
o Effect #2 of the comple@on: the equitable interest of the purchaser is not such as to give him/her a
general power to create property rights to others.

2. Requirement of a deed.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

The deed has to be signed to the pleasance of a witness who then signed the deed himself (even a neighbour)
This requirement is not met if the witness was not present when the par/es execu/ng the deed signed it, u
can’t be a remote witness : u have to be physically here
= s/ll applies when par/es sign electronically
This will be immediate if the document specifies that it is “signed and delivered as a deed”

PART 5: Adverse possession.

 It is the law of scaYers to become an owner. Situa/on where you have the paper owner of the house (the
registered owner) and then you have the claimant that is sta/ng your house. NB : only works if your house is
registered. If not, it will be based on prescrip/on legisla/on and not adverse possession

3 reasons for adverse possession to exist in English law (according to Dockray):

Ø To protect defendants from ‘stale’ claims (poor claims)
Ø To encourage plain/ffs not to sleep on their rights
Ø To ensure that a person may feel confident, aher the lapse of a given period of /me, that an incident
which might have led to a claim against him is finally closed.

The term squaYer applies to those in unauthorized occupa/on of land.

How is adverse possession jus@fied in the UK ? If you own something, you have to take care of it so if you
don’t, someone else can take care of it and you can lose your right over it

I. Introduc/on to Adverse Possession.

Successful claim for adverse possession, to valuable development land of which Pye was a registered owner. The
JA Pye (Oxford) company had a land which was squahed by Mr and Mrs Graham. Following the loss of its land, the company brought
Ltd v Graham an ac/on in front of UK in front of ECHR and said that it should receive financial compensa/on for the loss of its land
[2003] 1 AC 419 as property is sacred. The Grand chamber rejected the company’s claim.
“A thing which you have enjoyed and used as your own for a long @me (...) takes root in your being and cannot be
torn away without you resen/ng the act and trying to defend yourself, however you came by it”.

1. Incep/on of Adverse Possession.

The key date to iden/fy is the date at which a causal fac/on accrues against the PO :
- In an unregistered land: that is the date from with the limita/on period (prescrip/on) begins to run
- In registered land: date from which a person is treated as being in Adverse Possession
Dispossession: you are s/ll in charge of it, you pay the bills etc but someone disposes of it instead of you.
Discon@nuance: you abandoned it
The adverse possessor had to behave like the owner.

2. Elements of adverse possession:

A) Adverse:
- Lack of permission from the paper owner: do not have the permission to stay in the house by the PO
- possession can be reverse, even if the possessor holds registered /tle.

B) Possession:
- Factual Possession for 10 years: one has to had the possession of the house for 10 years to ask for Adverse
possession (be the legal owner now)
- Inten/on to possess: have to show that you had the inten@on to possess (ameliora/ng the house etc)

Adverse possession: Lack of permission from the owner.

• BP Proper@es Ltd v Buckler [1988] 55 P & CR 337.

Facts: the appellant parents had been in adverse possession of their home and how? they remained in
occupa/on at the end of their legal lease in 1955
( u pay a rent > u have a legal lease > at the end of it u stay in the home > beginning of adverse possession)
On order possession (when the PO is claiming his property) was obtained by the landowner within the
limita/on period but hat order in possession was not enforced
Pb here : this order possession (OP) was not enforced
Then the company, the PO purchased the freehold and the company wrote to the adverse possessors and in the
leYer the company was saying to the couple “u can remain in the property and u do not have to pay any rent”
Misses Buckler did not respond : nor accepted nor rejected
When she died, her son wanted to establish that his parents had acquired a /tle by adverse possession

Court said: “The rule that possession is not adverse it can be referred to a lawful /tle applies even if the person
in possession did not know of the lawful /tle; the lawful /tle would s/ll preclude the person with the paper /tle
from evic/ng the person in possession. So far as Mrs Buckler was concerned, even though she did not ‘accept’
the terms of the leYers, BP Proper/es would, in the absence of any repudia@on by her of the 2 lehers, have
been found to treat her as in possession as licensee on the terms of the lehers. They could not have evicted
her (if they could have done so at all) without determining the licence”.

It is sufficient that permission is given unilaterally.

Issue to decide whether the leYer interrupted the adverse possession.

And according to the court the leYer was a license even though the bucklers have never replied, can’t be
requalified as a contract bc u have to comply with S2 (consent of both par/es) and condi/ons of S2 are not met
but it can be requalified as a license which is unilateral

One legal way to stop someone from claiming to be the legal owner (5 min?)

ADVERSE possession: Possession can be adverse, even if the possessor holds registered /tle.

• Parshall v Hackney [2013] EWCA Civ 240.

No adverse possession
- A strip of land was a place to park your car
- The strip of land had been mistakenly registered the same strip of land into 2 diff /tles
(mistake by land registrar) :
- The owner of the /tle number 29 had been in possession of the strip of land since
1904 voluntarily
- The owner of the /tle number 31 had been in possession of the strip of land since
1980 by a triggering event. He then claimed the strip to Adverse Possession.
- Court of Appeal held that the possessor could not establish Adverse Possession as it is
impossible to be in Adverse Possession of a land that falls under its own registered /tle even
if that registra/on turns out to be mistaken.
The Court said that : “Possession is never ‘adverse’ within the meaning of the Act of 1980 if it
enjoyed under a lawful /tle. If, therefore, a person occupies or uses land by licence of the owner with
the paper /tle and his licence has not been duly determined, he cannot be treated as having
been in ‘adverse possession’ as against the owner with the paper /tle”.
- Even though mistake made by the land registrar, the fact that the land was registered couldn’t
make it possible to claim Adverse Possession (you would be claiming adverse possession
against yourself)

>> Possession is adverse ONLY if it is possession without the permission of the PO.
- Here the possession was implied by the fact that 29 had the property /tle so there was an
implied that 29 gave the permission to 31 to park there. Bc 29 never did anything so implied
permission
- here could advise to 31 to claim compensa/on for the mistake of the registrar + ask
compensa/on for the lose of the property :
- the value of the strip of land
- For 44 years
- lose of the value of the property
- => couldn’t be the true owner bc 29 had been registered before and is the true owner.

• Nasrullah v Rashid [2018] EWCA Civ 2685 : Adverse possession claim succeeded.
- Mohammed Rashid was the registered owner of a house in Birmingham. In 1990 when he was
abroad, a fraudster with the same name forged the document to become the registered owner
in place of the true Mohammed Rashid.
- Then, the fake Mohammed Rashid transferred his legal /tle to his son Farakh Rashid.
- Farakh was in occupa/on of the land and then he rented out from 1990 to 2013.
- In 2013, the true Mohammed Rashid applied for the rec/fica/on of the registra/on to
reinstate his legal /tle.
- First instance : It was held that under the rules set by the Land Registra/on Act of 2002 that
the register should be changed to reinstate the true Mohammed Rashid /tle.
- Court of Appeal deasegread and stated that the register should not be changed and that Farakh
Rashid had prove 12 years (before 2002) of adverse possession and therefore he acquired the
legal /tle.
Decision : “if Mohammed Rashid had remained the registered proprietor and Mohammed
Rashid (the fraudster) and subsequently his son Farakh Rashid had simply taken possession of
the property, Farakh Rashid would now be en/tled to be registered as proprietor in place of
Mohammed Rashid”.
The fraud is not a limit to Adverse Possession @tle.

Adverse POSSESSION: there must be a Factual possession.

• JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003]

“There are 2 elements necessary for legal possession:

(1) A sufficient degree of physical custody and control (factual possession)
(2) An inten@on to exercise such custody and control on one’s own behalf and for one’s own benefit
(inten/on to possess)”.
= these elements are cumula/ve condi/ons

• Powell v McFarlane [1977] 38 P&CR 452

“Factual possession signifies an appropriate degree of physical control.

It must be single and exclusive possession, though there can be a single possession exercised by or on behalf of
several persons jointly (...) The ques/on what acts cons/tute a sufficient degree of exclusive physical control
must depend on the circumstances, in par@cular the nature of the land and the manner in which the land of
that nature is commonly used or enjoyed”.

For a prac/cal case: U have to look at the facts and sees how the squaYers use the land
= very factual, no legal element
If that happen for the exam use at the facts and use each single facts to prove if there is or there is no factual
possession

Examples:

• Thorpe v Franck [2019] EWCA Civ 150

The possessor paved an open area in front of a bungalow he was squaong. In that case, the court confided that
it was sufficient to establish adverse possession. - “in considering whether the alleged possessor has been
dealing with the land as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it, the nature of the land
in ques/on is very important””.

• Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd [2007] 2 P&CR 17.

“a squaYer who has occupied a terraced house, has lived in it and has denied access through its doors other
than to his visitors, he would, no doubt, be taken to have had possession of the whole house notwithstanding
that he failed to prove he had occupied a back room on the top floor”.
He had acquired adverse possession of the whole house.
- you prove that you own something when you can exclude strangers from a place : reveals that you are
possessing the place.

• Ramroop (Samson) v Ishmael and Heerasingh [2010] UKPC 14.

Only thing that the possessor has to prove is : “part of the building was capable of being possessed by the
claimant to the exclusion of others”. - Same thing as Roberts : can exclude strangers so is in possession of the
apartment - he can then ask possession of the en/re house (not only the part they lived in (one floor for ex)

Adverse POSSESSION: Inten@on to possess.

=> once you prove that you had the factual possession, you have to show that you had the inten/on to possess.

• Buckingham County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623.

Inten/on to possess ≠ inten/on to own

- The county council had acquire a dispute of land for future use as part of the land
- The land enjoyed the claimants' garden and used the land as an extension of his garden.
- The only access through that land was through the claimant’s garden or a gate on which the
claimant put a lock.
- The claimant considered that he had been obliged to leave the land if it was acquired ??
- This statement made by the claimant could have defined an inten/on to own the land but it
did not preclude the claimant demonstra/ng that he intended to possess a land to the
exclusion of the others.
Inten/on to possess : need to show the inten@on that you had the inten@on to exclude the land
including the paper owner.

• Powell v McFarlane [1977] 38 P&CR 452.

“What is really meant, in my judgment, is that, the animus possidendi (the inten/on to possess) involves the
inten@on, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner
with the paper @tle (...) so far as it is reasonably prac/cable and so far as the processes of the law will allow”.
In Pye, the court considered that the intent to possess may be deduced by the clamant physical acts.
One of the judges added that when the claimant makes full use of the land, has he or she were the
owner, then the claimant’s conduct is sufficient to prove the intent to possess.

Therefore the burden of proof ships to the PO to prove that the claimant did not intend to possess.
Those acts include:
- inclosure describe by the court has “the stronger evidence of intent” => any kind of inclosure
(around the land : stronger evidence)
- the cul/va/on of an agricultural land,
- the placing of the sign “keep out”,
- locking or blocking the only means of access.

Instances:
• Purbrick v London Borough of Hackney[2003]EWHC1871.
the court highlighted the need to assess the claim on the basis of what the claimant has done. The fact that the
claimant could have done more does not défit a claim of adverse possession if what she or he has done is
enough to demonstrate the inten/on to possess.

• Topplan Estates v Townley [2004] EWCA Civ 1369.

the claimant’s act was sufficient to prove the intent to possess even though his use of the land did not change
following the expiree of a previous grazing (brouter) agreement

• Leigh v Jack [1879] 5 Ex D 264.

held that there is no dispossession of the PO by a claimant whose acts are not inconsistent with the PO future
use of the land. The claimant use of the land, in this case, for storage connected to his business was judged by
 the court not to cons/tute dispossession. Indeed, the acts of the claimant were not inconsistent with the PO’s
inten/on to dedicate the land to the public as a road.

II. Termina/on of Adverse Possession.

• Adv. possessor moves out

• Interrup/on by the PO
• Acknowledgment of the PO /tle by the adv.possessor

A. Interrup@on of Adverse Possession by the PO.

How long should the interrup/on be to end the adverse possession?

Zarb v Parry “An adverse possessor has to show he has exclusive possession in the sense of exclusive physical control. If he loses
[2011] EWCA Civ exclusive physical control, his adverse possession is interrupted and comes to an end. Time begins to run again. In
1306 this case, the Zarbs had banged fence posts into the ground to that it might be said that the Parrys lost exclusive
control of the limited area affected by those posts. However, the area occupied by each post would have been small
and could not jus/fy a conclusion that adverse possession of the whole of the strip had been interrupted”.
(Lord Arden LJ) In other word, an interrup@on of 20 minutes / 1 hour is not sufficient to end adverse possession.

B. Acknowledgment of the PO @tle by the Adverse Possessor.

Sec@on 29 and 30 of the Limita@on Act

- If I am the squaYer and I acknowledge that I am not the proprietor but acknowledge the PO
/tle, then I am not a squaYer anymore.
- then the PO has an ac@on on criminal law bc you are a trespasser.

è Ofulue were registered as the owners of the property which they had let to tenants when they went to
leave abroad. Since 1981 the property had been occupied by the tenant Bossert & her father. The possession
proceedings had ini/ally been commit against Bossert in 1987, only aher 6 or 7 years. Stopped out in 2002.
The current proceeding had started in 2003. Bossert in the second proceeding claim adverse possession. In this
legal proceeding the Ofulue argued that the two legal proceedings cons/tuted an acknowledgment of /tle
under the limita/on act bc 2 events : Ofulue offered Bossert to buy their house in 1992 (she say yes or no,
Ofulue v Bossert nego/ated by email etc) Bossert and her dad, they had counterclaim for a lease and the dad or Bossert argued
[2009] UKHL 16 that the Ofulue had promised them a lease in return of house works in return of the house.
Nego/a/ng to purchase a house is not an acknowledgment of the PO /tle.
Her claim for adverse possession succeeded and the court said that in order to establish adverse possession
the claimant must show only inten@on to possess and not to own !!!

èIF THEY HAVE ARGUED INTERRUPTION WITH THE PREVIOUS LEGAL PROCEEDING THINGS WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN THE SAME