JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v Graham and another
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v Graham and another
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 18 EG 176-183(8) .
CA 6 February 2001. Appellants J acquired an area of farmland containing the disputed land, with the intention of holding the disputed land until planning permission could be obtained for development. J made a succession of arrangements relating to the disputed land with defendants G who owned the adjoining property, and between 1986 and 1999 G grazed, maintained and fertilised the disputed land. J acquired the disputed land by transfer in 1985, and applied for possession of land to recover the land from G who had claimed adverse possession. The court held that G had established intention to possess and rejected J's claim for possession. J appealed. Appeal allowed; G did not demonstrate the required intention to possess and no adverse possession took place. Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol Article 1 does not impinge upon the Limitation Act 1980 and the acquisition of title by adverse possession. Copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/6ff876ba66f8361a8025683c00411386/1214f9677599f6fd80256a24003f2c86?OpenDocument
ADVERSE POSSESSION
LAND OWNERSHIP
POSSESSION
LIMITATION ACT 1980
JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD V GRAHAM
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
CA 6 February 2001. Appellants J acquired an area of farmland containing the disputed land, with the intention of holding the disputed land until planning permission could be obtained for development. J made a succession of arrangements relating to the disputed land with defendants G who owned the adjoining property, and between 1986 and 1999 G grazed, maintained and fertilised the disputed land. J acquired the disputed land by transfer in 1985, and applied for possession of land to recover the land from G who had claimed adverse possession. The court held that G had established intention to possess and rejected J's claim for possession. J appealed. Appeal allowed; G did not demonstrate the required intention to possess and no adverse possession took place. Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol Article 1 does not impinge upon the Limitation Act 1980 and the acquisition of title by adverse possession. Copy of judgement available on http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/6ff876ba66f8361a8025683c00411386/1214f9677599f6fd80256a24003f2c86?OpenDocument
ADVERSE POSSESSION
LAND OWNERSHIP
POSSESSION
LIMITATION ACT 1980
JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD V GRAHAM
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998