Intents and purposes
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0116) 21 April 2001, 143(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the CA decision in "JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham" where the ruling that gave Graham title to development land was overturned because continuing use of land was not regarded as clear evidence of intention to possess. The decision also confirmed that the law on adverse possession is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3716-20 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112169-1001 |
Discusses the CA decision in "JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham" where the ruling that gave Graham title to development land was overturned because continuing use of land was not regarded as clear evidence of intention to possess. The decision also confirmed that the law on adverse possession is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.