Palfrey v. Wilson and another [electronic resource]
Palfrey v. Wilson and another [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWCA Civ 94, 15 February 2007. The appellant appealed against an order that a wall between his property and the property of the respondents belonged to them. The former owner of the respondents' property had inserted a damp-proof course and carried out work to increase the height of the wall after receiving planning permission to do so. The judge held that the wall belonged to the respondents because the title had been acquired by adverse possession. The appellant submitted that the primary facts did not meet the conditions necessary to establish a claim to adverse possession. "Held": With consideration of the fact that, throughout the period of his ownership and occupation, the previous owner of the respondents' property had done all that was needed to maintain the whole of the wall, repairing it, inserting a damp proof course, and applying for planning permission and subsequently works, it was decided that these were unequivocal acts of adverse possession dispossessing the paper owner. The appeal was dismissed.
PALFREY V WILSON AND ANOTHER
England--886-
[2007] EWCA Civ 94, 15 February 2007. The appellant appealed against an order that a wall between his property and the property of the respondents belonged to them. The former owner of the respondents' property had inserted a damp-proof course and carried out work to increase the height of the wall after receiving planning permission to do so. The judge held that the wall belonged to the respondents because the title had been acquired by adverse possession. The appellant submitted that the primary facts did not meet the conditions necessary to establish a claim to adverse possession. "Held": With consideration of the fact that, throughout the period of his ownership and occupation, the previous owner of the respondents' property had done all that was needed to maintain the whole of the wall, repairing it, inserting a damp proof course, and applying for planning permission and subsequently works, it was decided that these were unequivocal acts of adverse possession dispossessing the paper owner. The appeal was dismissed.
PALFREY V WILSON AND ANOTHER
England--886-