Reeling from a judgment in favour of a squatter, it is not unknown for an embittered paper owner to talk of the Limitation Act 1980 in terms of legalised theft.
It was possibly with such thoughts in mind that the claimant in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2001] EGCS 19 sought to persuade the Court of Appeal that the squatter’s claim could not be allowed without violating the sanctity of property principle declared in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court was unmoved, being more impressed with the standard justifications advanced for disposing of stale claims.
Unfortunately for the defendant squatter, the owner’s appeal succeeded on its primary ground, namely lack of clear evidence of an intention to possess the grazing land in dispute. As pointed out by Sandi Murdoch in
Reeling from a judgment in favour of a squatter, it is not unknown for an embittered paper owner to talk of the Limitation Act 1980 in terms of legalised theft.
It was possibly with such thoughts in mind that the claimant in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2001] EGCS 19 sought to persuade the Court of Appeal that the squatter’s claim could not be allowed without violating the sanctity of property principle declared in Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court was unmoved, being more impressed with the standard justifications advanced for disposing of stale claims.
Unfortunately for the defendant squatter, the owner’s appeal succeeded on its primary ground, namely lack of clear evidence of an intention to possess the grazing land in dispute. As pointed out by Sandi Murdoch in Intents and purposes Estates Gazette 21 April 2001, p143, the guidance afforded by the case should prove particularly useful where the dispute, unlike the encroachment spats we usually see, relates to an extensive area of land.
