ap

• Adverse possession


  Principle of relativity of title
• Relativity of title


  • Title to an estate in land are relative
  • Title is 'good' against all others except for someone who can assert a better claim
  • Possession based
  • Presumption that possession = freehold
  • You have a right to defend your possession against others except against someone who can assert a better claim
  • Law gives credit to possession unless [it is otherwise] explained
  • No moral claim
• Right to defend possession


  Against subsequent possessors to you
• Problem if this were completely true: title would always be vulnerable to claims by earlier possessors
• Concept of limitation


  • Time in possession limits a prior possessor's right to reclaim possession
  • Stops the possibility of endless conflict over title and control of land
  • Limitation against even the paper holder of title
• Eg


  • Asher v Whitlock (1865)
• Asher v Whitlock


  • Williamson was a "squatter"
  • This led two different people to argue that they had a better claim to Williamson's property after his death
  • The acquiescence of the original owner
• Asher v Whitlock facts


  • Williamson enclosed some land in 1842
  • Lived there with family until he died in 1860
  • He left the land to his wife Lucy for the period of her widowhood and then to Mary Ann
  • Lucy remarries
  • Her and husband Whitlock don't give up possession to Mary Ann
  • Mary Ann dies in February 1863, followed by Lucy in May 1863
  • Whitlock remains in possession
  • Mary Ann's heir (Mrs Asher) argued that title passed to her
  • Whitlock argued that Williamson had no title to pass on because he was a squatter
• Asher v Whitlock judgment


  • Williamson did acquire title as soon as he took possession in 1842
  • Good against all but the person he dispossessed
  • This interest could pass via will/intestacy: Lucy > Mary Ann > Mrs Asher
  • Whitlock also had title
  • From the moment he was in possession, it's just Mrs Asher's title was better!
  • Mrs Asher has full, perfected title
  • Limitation period of 20 years ran against the paper owner (1842-1862)
  • Possession between Thomas, Lucy, Mary Ann, and Mrs Asher was unbroken
• Rationale for AP: 'Not the merit of the possessor, but the demerit of the one out of possession'
• If you were really that bothered, you should have asserted your rights sooner!
• Loss aversion explains the importance of emotion and social utility in property
• Stability it affords to title going forward
• Limitation prevents messy and temporally detached claims
• Asher v Whitlock in era of unregistered land
• Only difference in registered land is that title of another could only be extinguished on application to be made to be registered
• Would be done without question if limitation period had run
• LRA 1925 sought to reflect rules related to unregistered land
• This is evident in Pye v Graham, more recent, and related to registered land
• JA Pye v Graham (2002)

  • JA Pye purchased Henwick Manor
  • Sold in 1977 but kept 25 hectares of land to develop it
  • Grahams became owners in 1982
  • JA Pye let the Grahams use the land for grazing until end of 1983
• Issue in JA Pye v Graham

  • JA Pye didn't re-licence Grahams to use land graze
  • They kept requesting a new licence and kept offering to pay
  • Pye ignored communications from the Grahams
  • All the while, the Grahams kept using the land
  • After 12 years, the land became theirs
  • Tract of land worth "£10 million"