Land Registry has clarified its guidelines on adverse possession following Nicholas Strauss QC’s ruling in Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer [2005] 14 EG 129 (CS).
The additional guidance supplements Practice Guide 5 – Adverse possession of unregistered land and transitional provisions for registered land in the Land Registration Act 2002 and states that: “where an application is made under paragraph 18 of Schedule 12 to the Land Registration Act 2002, and the necessary period of adverse possession started after 2 October 1988, the applicant must show an arguable case for the possession being inconsistent with the use or intended use of the land by the registered proprietor, and not merely that the possession was without the registered proprietor’s consent.”
The Beaulane decision has sparked considerable interest amongst legal practitioners ahead of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30; [2002] 28 EG 129 (CS). Allyson Colby, professional support lawyer at Wragge & Co, said: “The Beaulane decision relates to claims for adverse possession since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000 and applies only to registered land.
“The judge was obviously keen to avoid accusations of ‘judicial vandalism’ and was equally careful to distinguish between claims for adverse possession of registered and unregistered land. The judge ruled that title to registered land is wholly dependent on the registers of title maintained by the Land Registry, which ought to be conclusive, but that title to unregistered land is dependent on possession, where different considerations apply.
“It will be interesting to see whether the European Court of Human Rights agrees with the judge’s conclusions. It too is considering this very point (cf JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham) and is expected to reach its own conclusions very shortly.”
The guidance is available from Land Registry’s website. Click here to be redirected to the site.
References: EGi Legal News 12/04/05
