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 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB3716-17 Right to buy | WB3716-18 Cinema parks face bad projections | WB3716-19 Reform of planning law | WB3716-20 Intents and purposes | WB3716-21 Home Condition Report pilots | WB3716-22 Retreat on business rate levy | WB3716-23 Specialists needed |
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.