| 000 | 01182cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS63762 | ||
| 008 | 000000n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u111508 | ||
| 100 |
_aHanson _R. |
||
| 245 | _aIn the face of adversity | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aProperty Week _v66(10) 9 March 2001, 113-114(2) |
||
| 520 | _aDescribes, 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. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aADVERSE POSSESSION | ||
| 650 | _aHUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 | ||
| 650 | _aSQUATTERS | ||
| 650 | _aGRAZING LEASES | ||
| 650 | _aJA PYE (OXFORD) LTD V GRAHAM | ||
| 690 | _aPROPERTY | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c66449 _d66449 |
||