Adverse possession – Estoppel – Appellant acting as member of management committee for co-operative housing association formed to acquire leases of properties from council – Appellant taking possession of garage forming part of properties – Respondent seeking possession of garage as successor in title of co-operative – Whether appellant establishing title by 12 years’ adverse possession – Whether estopped from maintaining such claim – Appeal dismissed
The respondent housing association owned a leasehold interest in two semi-detached properties that contained flats, together with gardens to the rear and a garage. It was the successor in title to a co-operative housing association, which had been formed by residents of the properties in the 1980s; the co-operative had acquired long leases of the properties from the local council. The appellant was one such resident; he had moved in as a squatter in 1973. In 2006, the respondent brought proceedings against the appellant seeking possession of the garage, which it wanted to demolish owing to concerns over its state of repair. The appellant asserted that he had acquired title to the garage by 12 years’ adverse possession since 1975; he had become aware in 2006 that ownership could be acquired in that way.
The judge found that the appellant had taken possession of the garage in 1975, when he had broken in and put a padlock on the entrance gates, and had established the necessary 12 years’ possession since that date. She held that the use of the garage by other residents to store property did not displace the necessary intention to possess on the appellant’s part since they had either used the garage with the appellant’s authorisation or as trespassers of whom he was either unaware or whom he was prepared to tolerate. However, she held that the appellant was estopped from asserting his claim to title by his behaviour in the meeting of the co-operative’s management committee, of which he was a member, since he had knowingly created the impression that the garage was communal property, and had allowed committee members to proceed in the general belief that they were negotiating with the council for a lease that would give them actual control and possession of the garage.
On appeal, the appellant contended that no proprietary estoppel arose since, in circumstances where he had had no knowledge of the law of adverse possession or that he had a proprietary claim to the garage, his actions during the his membership of the management committee had not been unconscionable.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
In the ordinary course of events, it would not be unconscionable for a person to deny a thing that he had, knowingly or unknowingly, allowed another to assume, provided that he did not at the time believe that he had any right to object to the other’s actions. In such a case, the court should not ordinarily prevent that person from asserting his rights once he had become aware of them. However, although the appellant had not become aware of his potential right to ownership of the garage until 2006, the judge had found that: (i) he had had a focused intention to use and possess the garage; (ii) he had sought to further his own particular interest with regard to the garage so far as he could; and (iii) he had held the necessary intention to occupy the garage to the exclusion of other persons. The appellant had believed that he had a right to exclusive possession of the garage as against the other residents, even if he did not at the time equate that right with ownership, and he had believed that that right would continue after the acquisition of a lease by the co-operative. Despite that belief, he had encouraged the co-operative to enter into negotiations with the council on the basis that the garage would become leasehold property and would be available communally. There had been cogent evidence before the judge to support her finding of representation and detriment: Wilmott v Barber (1880) 15 ChD 96, Taylors Fashions Ltd v Victoria Friendly Society [1979] 2 EGLR 54; (1979) 251 EG 159 and Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 35 EG 142; [2008] 36 EG 142 considered.
Stephen Jourdan (instructed by Dewar Hogan) appeared for the appellant; Nicholas Grundy (instructed by Batchelors) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
