Limitation Act 1980 – Human Rights Act 1988 – Adverse possession claim to residential properties – Whether such claim outlawed by Articles 1 and/or 6 of European Convention
The sole issue was whether a defence based upon adverse possession of two houses, which belonged to the claimant association, could no longer be raised following the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. The association relied upon the second sentence of Article 1 of the Convention (non-deprivation of possessions), and upon Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).
The defendants were appealing against a county court ruling that had allowed the association to introduce the human rights issues by way of amendment to its possession claim.
Held: The defendants’ appeal was allowed.
It had to be taken as established by decisions from the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights (the most explicit being Bramelidv Sweden 8588/79 (1983) 5 EHRR 249), that the non-deprivation provision was directed against expropriations by or authorised by the state, as distinct from matters that were essentially ones of private law: see also Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35, James v United Kingdom A/98 (1986) 8 EHRR 123, Holy Monasteries v Greece A/301-A (1995) 20 EHRR 1. The same proposition could be gathered from JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2001] EWCA Civ 117; [2001] 2 EGLR .
Nicholas Vineall (instructed by Evans Butler Wade) appeared for the claimant; Stephen Knafler (instructed by Steel & Shamash) appeared for the defendants.
Alan Cooklin, barrister
