In the face of adversity
Series: Property Week ; 66(10) 9 March 2001, 113-114(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Describes, and considers the implications of, the CA's findings in "JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham". The case involved the granting, and then expiration, of a grazing licence, and a later claim by Graham that they had gained title to the land through 12 years of adverse possession. Pye won the appeal, but lost on its challenge to adverse possession under the Human Rights Act 1998. The case thus confirms that adverse possession is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act. It also illustrates to developers the importance of supervising their holdings adequately, in order to avoid adverse possession claims.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63762 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111508-1001 |
Describes, and considers the implications of, the CA's findings in "JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham". The case involved the granting, and then expiration, of a grazing licence, and a later claim by Graham that they had gained title to the land through 12 years of adverse possession. Pye won the appeal, but lost on its challenge to adverse possession under the Human Rights Act 1998. The case thus confirms that adverse possession is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act. It also illustrates to developers the importance of supervising their holdings adequately, in order to avoid adverse possession claims.