Defendant council owning neglected building — Claimant storing equipment in building and boarding up doorways — Whether such use amounting to adverse possession — Claim allowed
The defendant local authority owned premises that were neglected to the point where they consisted of little more than the shell of a building. From 1988, the claimant builder stored his equipment in the building and covered the doorways with sheets of corrugated iron, which he secured with padlocks. In 1992, he restored the building by replacing the roof, doors and first floor.
The claimant sought title to the premises by reason of adverse possession. The council argued that the mere storage of items in the property was insufficient to demonstrate the necessary intention to dispossess the rightful owner: Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19 considered.
Held: The claim was allowed.
Littledale was not to be relied upon unless the facts of the case were very similar, which was not so here. The claimant always had the necessary requirements of factual possession and intention to possess. Between 1988 and 1992, he had done all that was possible to occupy and retain possession of the premises. He was not required to demonstrate that he had intended to claim ownership of the building but rather that he intended to exclude the world, which he had done.
Jonathan de Rohan (instructed by WH Matthews & Co) appeared for the claimant; Harry Spurr (instructed by the solicitor to Hackney London Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister