Paper title to land being vested in respondents – Building on land being used by appellant – Court granting respondents possession of land – Whether appellant showing requisite intention to possess – Appeal dismissed
The land in question adjoined 183 St George’s Road, Bolton, which was owned by the appellant and his wife. A structure had been erected in the middle of the land, which the appellant had used, from a date unknown, as a religious school or mosque and had permitted visitors to park on the land for such purposes. The previous tenant of the land had terminated his tenancy in 1979. A member of the appellant’s family had negotiated with Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (the respondents) between 1979 and 1989 for a tenancy of the land, but no further tenancies had been granted. The appellant denied the respondents’ title to the land. It was not disputed that the appellant had used part of the land from 1977 onwards, but the respondents claimed that his intention in doing so was not admitted and not known. At trial, the appellant chose not to call any evidence and placed chief reliance on the admissions in reply. The only source of evidence available to the court was that of the respondents’ senior valuation surveyor, to show that the paper title to the land was vested in the respondents. The judge held that “intention is a state of mind . . . I have no evidence from him as to his state of mind and without that evidence I see no basis on which I can infer from the respondents’ evidence and admissions that the appellant intended to exclude the respondents and the world at large from the land”. The respondents were therefore entitled to possession of the land. The appellant appealed on two grounds: (i) that the judge erred in suggesting that the appellant had to give evidence as to his state of mind as, without it, a conclusion in his favour could not be drawn; and (ii) that had the judge properly directed himself, on the balance of probabilities, he would have found that adverse possession had been established.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The judge was plainly right in finding that intention was a state of mind. The ordinary way to establish it was by inference from actions of an adverse possessor in all the circumstances. It was for the person claiming adverse possession to set out his case as to whatever use he made of the land through his occupation and how it amounted to factual possession and the relevant intention to exclude the world at large. That was not done in the present case. The appellant’s only evidence before the judge were the statements in reply. That was not sufficient to show adverse possession and the judge was correct to conclude as he did.
Colin Ross-Munro QC and Arthur Blake (instructed by Malik Adams, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; John Gregory (instructed by the solicitor to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
