Adverse possession — Action to recover possession of land — Plot purchased for road scheme but not used by owner — Squatter placed lock on gate — Whether owner dispossessed — Whether squatter showed intention to possess
In October 1955 the county council purchased a plot of land in Amersham to use in connection with a proposal to divert the A404 public highway. Access to the plot was through a gate from the adjoining road. The plot was otherwise enclosed by hedges or fences on all sides except the north side. The north side was bounded by a further plot upon which a house was built. At about the time the council purchased the plot they offered the owner of that house a tenancy or licence of the council’s plot pending its use for highway purposes, but the owner declined such an arrangement. Instead the owner requested that the council put up a fence along the boundary between the two properties; this was not done.
In about 1965 a further house was erected on part of the land to the north of the council’s plot, and the garden of this house abutted the council’s boundary. In July 1971 the defendant purchased this second house. He knew at the time that the “paper title” to the adjoining plot belonged to the council and that his conveyance only transferred to him “such title as the vendors may have”. When he moved in, the defendant put a new chain and padlock on the gate to the council’s plot and thereafter treated the plot as part of his garden. After some correspondence in March 1976 the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the council claiming that the defendant had a possessory title to the plot. The council eventually commenced proceedings on October 28 1985 claiming possession.
Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 now lays down a time-limit of 12 years from the date when a right of action first accrued within which an action must be brought to recover any land. An action is said to accrue on the date when the person who has been in possession of land has “been dispossessed or discontinued his action”.
Held The critical date in the present case was 12 years before the action commenced, namely October 28 1973. As the council had not discontinued their possession, the question was whether they had been “dispossessed” before that date. The analysis in Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P & CR 452 of what constitutes dispossession should be followed: the defendant had dealt with the disputed plot as the “occupying owner”; a necessary animus possidendi was shown by the drastic act of placing a padlock and chain on the gate. Any reasonable inspection by the council should have alerted them that someone was making clear his intention to exclude others, including the council, from the plot. A conversation between a council officer and the defendant which indicated that the defendant realised the plot was not his was not inconsistent with an intent to possess the plot. The council’s action to recover possession was dismissed.
Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex D 264;
Williams Bros Direct Stores Ltd v Raftery [1958] 1 QB 159;
Tecbild Ltd v Chamberlain (1969) 20 P & CR 633; and
Wallis’s Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell-Mex & BP
Ltd [1975] QB 94 considered.
Michael Douglas (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard for D U Pullen) appeared for the plaintiff council; and Peter Griffiths (instructed by Memery Crystal) appeared for the defendant.
