Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer [2005] 14 EG 129 (CS)
The High Court has surprised the property industry by declaring that the law relating to adverse possession that applied to registered land until 13 October 2003 (when the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force, making it more difficult to acquire title to registered land) is affected by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge reached his conclusion on the ground that the Land Registration Act 1925 deprived landowners of property rights without requiring squatters to compensate former proprietors for the loss of their land.
However, the judge did not make a declaration of incompatibility. This would have put the government under pressure to reconsider the land registration regime that applied from 2 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, and the transitional provisions in the 2002 legislation, which protect squatters who had already barred title to registered land when the new regime came into force, by recasting the meaning of “adverse possession”.
The judge was also careful to distinguish between adverse possession of registered land and unregistered land. He ruled that title to registered land is wholly dependent upon the registers of title maintained by the Land Registry, which ought to be conclusive, but that title to unregistered land relies upon possession and that different considerations will therefore apply.
It will be interesting to see whether the European Court of Human Rights agrees. It is considering this very point and is expected to reach a decision very soon.
Allyson Colby is an associate in the real estate group at Wragge & Co LLP
Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer [2005] 14 EG 129 (CS)
The High Court has surprised the property industry by declaring that the law relating to adverse possession that applied to registered land until 13 October 2003 (when the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force, making it more difficult to acquire title to registered land) is affected by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge reached his conclusion on the ground that the Land Registration Act 1925 deprived landowners of property rights without requiring squatters to compensate former proprietors for the loss of their land.
However, the judge did not make a declaration of incompatibility. This would have put the government under pressure to reconsider the land registration regime that applied from 2 October 2000, when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, and the transitional provisions in the 2002 legislation, which protect squatters who had already barred title to registered land when the new regime came into force, by recasting the meaning of “adverse possession”.
The judge was also careful to distinguish between adverse possession of registered land and unregistered land. He ruled that title to registered land is wholly dependent upon the registers of title maintained by the Land Registry, which ought to be conclusive, but that title to unregistered land relies upon possession and that different considerations will therefore apply.
It will be interesting to see whether the European Court of Human Rights agrees. It is considering this very point and is expected to reach a decision very soon.
Allyson Colby is an associate in the real estate group at Wragge & Co LLP
