ChD, 23 March 2005. Considers whether claimant registered owner of land (B) could overturn defendant's (P) claim of adverse possession by virtue of the Land Registration Act 1925 of the disputed land. B held that the 1925 Act s75 read together with the Limitation Act 1980 deprived it of its property without compensation in contravention of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol 1 Art 1. Contended that the court should by the Human Rights Act 1998 s3 (which came into force in October 2000), give effect to the statutory provisions so as to render them compatible with the Convention if possible. "Held": claim allowed. B's loss was incompatible with its rights under the Convention, which protect the peaceful enjoyment of property. The effect of the legislation as a whole transferred the right to possession to the trespasser (P), amounting to a deprivation of possession within Protocol 1 Art 1. Nothing in the circumstances could justify the transfer of property without compensation from the deserving (B) to the undeserving (P). Reinterpreting the legislation in accordance with the 1998 Act s3, B remained the owner and P's claim to have acquired the disputed land failed.