The trustees accept that the paper title to the patch has long been extinguished, but claim that the resulting possessory title must, on the facts, be presumed to have been acquired on behalf of the landlord. Given that the patch never belonged to the trustees, can this possibly be correct?
Q Some 25 years ago, my company took a 20-year lease of a warehouse belonging to a family trust. In the sixth year of the lease, we built some garages beside the warehouse on a piece of derelict land (the patch) belonging to a third party who has never appeared on the scene. We vacated the warehouse when the lease expired, but continued to occupy the garages with no objection from the trustees or anyone else. Possession of the garages is now sought by a property company that bought the warehouse from the trustees last year.
The trustees accept that the paper title to the patch has long been extinguished, but claim that the resulting possessory title must, on the facts, be presumed to have been acquired on behalf of the landlord. Given that the patch never belonged to the trustees, can this possibly be correct?
A It seems that the property company is relying upon Batt v Adams [2001] 32 EG 90, where Laddie J was persuaded (somewhat to his own surprise) that the presumption in question did indeed extend to land belonging to a third party. But the property company is not home and dry. It was further held that the benefit of the presumption could only go to the person who happened to be the landlord when the tenancy expired – in your case the trustees, who will no doubt be inviting offers in due course.
