[2005] EWCA Civ 489, 7 April 2005. Appeal by the occupiers (T) against an order to deliver possession of a disputed farmhouse and other property to its registered owner (B). B had served a notice to quit in 1985 on two brothers, the original tenants, one of whom, the first appellant's (T) father asserted his right to a life tenancy in response to the notice. The appellants (the son and the son's wife) submitted that the by then late father had acquired title to the disputed property by adverse possession through continuous possession of it since 1985 and B's title had been extinguished after 12 years by virtue of s15 of the Limitation Act 1980. B contended that occupation after 1985 was by B's permission as implied by B not pursuing the 1985 notice to quit and allowing the two brothers to continue occupying the farmhouse. "Held": appeal dismissed. The farmhouse had been occupied with B's implied permission within the second part of Sched 1 para 8(4) of the Act. Implied permission exists where the inference can be drawn from some overt act by the landowner or by demonstrable circumstances that permission was given and where any reasonable person could see that the use was with landowner's permission but it did not need to be communicated by words or conduct. B was entitled to possession of all the disputed land.