Introduction

In Rains v Buxton, Fry J derived the word ouster from the old law of
adverse possession which means the removal of the true owner from
possession
Then a question arise, what are the justifications for squatters to become
owners?
10 years ago, the UK courts upheld an adverse possession to a 23 ha piece of
land
At prima facie, it appears to be unfair to the title owner of the land
However, this is all what adverse possession is all about
A squatter can become the title holder of the land if they can successfully
fulfil an active possession for a certain period of time
In RB Policies v Butler stated, adverse possession is a policy which favours
the squatters and denies legal assistance for those who sleep on their rights
LRA 2002 now governs policies of adverse possession, thus it making it
difficult take possession of a registered title
This is also applicable for unregistered land
To a certain extent, the ECHR has shown a degree of great influence over
adverse possession
Para 1

There are 2 requirements governing adverse possession;

i.
Fact of possession (Buckinghamshire CC v Moran)
ii.
Intention to possess (Powell v McFarlane)
Slade LJ provided definition for the 2 elements :
i.
Factual possession squatter must show he exclusive has over the
property (as though the property belongs to him)
ii.
Intention to possess squatters mind set should reflect that the
property is in his name and it excludes the owner with the property
title
In Pye v Graham, Lord Browne Wilkinson cited Powell and upheld the
claim which successfully satisfied both the requirements
In Buckinghamshire CC v Moran, the squatter (Moran) had fenced and
installed a gate on the land, thus it showed an absolute intention to possess
the land even though he knew that the council had future plans for that land
The Law Commission Consultant Paper No 254, Land Registration
for the 21st Century stated that registration title works, when a is
registered then it is followed by possession
However, in unregistered land as per S15 of the Limitation Act 1980
stated that squatters must have 12 years of possession of the land before the
paper title owner rights are extinguished
As seen in Tichbourne v Weir, S17 Limitation Act 1980 states that there
is no right of action by the paper title owner
The squatters should establish certain elements to have their claims
successful

Para 2

The birth of LRA 2002 was as a result of strong political and economical
considerations however still maintained the law concerning adverse
possession
The new law under S96 LRA 2002 has provided safeguards against the title
owner thus Limitation Act 1980 is no longer applicable
S97 LRA 2002 refers to Schedule 6 concerning adverse possession
The squatter may apply for registration after 10 years, paper owner will be
notified and given 65 days for objection which is a simple veto and zero
justification (paper owner can say no without providing any justification)
There are 2 possible outcomes ;
i.
No objection by the paper title owner thus squatter will be registered
as title owner
ii.
Where paper title owner exercises veto. Thus, he is given 2 years to
evict the squatter, failing to do so will results to the squatter being
registered as title owner
Schedule 6 Para 5 LRA 2002 sets out 3 exceptions where despite objection
squatter will still be entitled to register ;
i.
Where it will be unfair for the paper title owner to evict the squatter
(equity by estoppel)
ii.
Where the squatter for some other reason is entitled to the land
iii.
Where the land in application is adjacent to the land that belongs to
the applicant ( A is the paper title owner of Blackacre and B is the
paper title owner of Whiteacre but B has been sleeping on his rights,
now A wants to bring Whiteacre for registration. Can he? Yes. As long
as he is the paper title owner to the land adjacent to it)
As seen in Hopkins v Beacon
However there are criticisms that the exceptions can cause injustice to the
squatters due to the paper owner failing to follow Schedule 6 Para 5

Para 3
The law concerning adverse possession is topsy-turvy in its nature
Martin Dixon states that adverse possession teases the government on the
uncertainty of a title, also believes that when the law prefers the squatters
over paper title owners it has destroyed the mechanism of land law
Professor Rosemary Auchmuty states that a balance has to be struck
between the paper owner, society and economy rather than leaving a land
undeveloped
Para 4
Did the law on adverse possession breach ECHR?
Article 1 of the First Protocol (the right to the peaceful enjoyment of
ones possession) discusses the protection of property
In Pye v Graham, it was a matter regarding further licenses to continue
using the land

High Court
According to Newberger J in High Court, allow Grahams to adversely enjoy
the land, he said that the result did not go in line with justice and cannot be
justified practically. He also states that the awareness on Human Rights in
the area of adverse possession was illogical and inconsistent because the
Human Rights Acts seeks to protect the paper title owner and adverse
possession protects squatters

Court of Appeal
Mummery J in COA reversed the decision of High Court, stating that Graham
did not satisfy the requirement of intention because he was willing to pay and
extend his license. This shows that he was aware of his occupation on
anothers land
House of Lords
However, HOL again reversed the decision in COA and allowed Graham to
possess the land adversely
Lord Bingham agreed with Lord Browne Wilkinson in Powell and said
that willingness to pay did not indicate an absence of intention to possess
ECHR
Pye brought the matter to ECHR simply because he felt that there was an
interference with his property rights (Pye & another v United Kingdom)
The Grand Chamber held that there was a violation of Article 1 of the First
Protocol and awarded compensation to Pye
Prior to Pye, another ECHR case Beulane Properties v Palmer held no
longer a good law
Ofulue v Bossert confirmed the case of Pye as a precedent, but this
decisions do not change the outcomes in domestic courts because cases are
subjected to its own facts
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the law concerning adverse possession has changed drastically
since the introduction of LRA 2002
Nevertheless, is adverse possession justified? To a certain extent I do agree
In Hounslow v Minchinton, the land in UK is limited thus adverse
possession can ensure better economic and social use of the land
Pye v UK demonstrated that principles in adverse possession is compatible
with Article 8 of ECHR, squatters have the right to exercise their right to
privacy on the land