Squatter in possession — Limitation period — Effect of letter demanding possession — No acknowledgement of true owner — Whether time stops running — Effect of extinguishment of title — Whether claims for rent and damages extinguished
The plaintiff company is registered as the proprietor of an absolute freehold title of a property in 38 Queen’s Gate, Palace Mews, Kensington. The first defendant is in occupation of the property and claimed that the plaintiffs’ title has been extinguished by adverse possession, there having been a continuity of squatters since October 1970. In January 1981 solicitors acting for the plaintiffs wrote to the parties in possession at the time requiring the property to be vacated by February 28 1981; solicitors acting for those parties replied denying any right of the plaintiffs to recover possession. The plaintiffs did not issue a writ seeking possession until February 28 1983, by which time more than 12 years had elapsed since the commencement of adverse possession. In the court below, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed as being statute barred, although a claim for damages for trespass during the period from January 1981 to October 1982 was allowed. Both the plaintiffs and the first defendant appealed that decision.
Held 1. The plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed. The letter of January 1981 sent on behalf of the plaintiffs did not cause the defendant to cease to be in possession for the purpose of time running in her favour within the meaning of para 8(2) of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980. The sending and receipt of a letter demanding possession could not have the effect of making the property cease to be in adverse possession; unless a squatter vacated the property or gave a written acknowledgement to the owner, only the issue of a writ within the limitation period would prevent the running of time.
2. The defendant’s cross-appeal against the award of damages was allowed. Although the plaintiffs had a right to recover possession and claim damages before the limitation period expired in October 1982, once that date had passed the plaintiffs’ title to the property was extinguished; if extinguishment of title also extinguished the right to claim rent which was payable during a period of adverse possession, so must it also extinguish any claim to damages during that period. When title to land is extinguished by the Limitation Act 1980, the rights which that title carried are also extinguished.
As the property is registered land, the plaintiffs’ title was not strictly extinguished, but they are deemed to hold the title in trust for the defendant by virtue of section 75(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925.
In re Jolly
[1900] 2 Ch 616 followed.
Alan Newman and Anthony White (instructed by Sears Tooth & Co) appeared for the plaintiff company; Nicholas Merriman QC (instructed by Fremont & Co) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendant did not appear and was not represented.
