Under the Limitation Act 1980, squatters are able to acquire title to land by proving that they have been in adverse possession for at least 12 years. Claims by and against squatters under this regime are heard by the courts.
The 1980 Act used to apply to both registered and unregistered land. However, the Land Registration Act 2002 introduces a new statutory scheme where title has been registered at the Land Registry. Swan Housing Association Ltd v Gill [2012] EWHC 3129 (QB) highlights the importance of following the procedures prescribed by the 2002 Act when relying on adverse possession to claim title to registered land.
The point emerged when a landlord sought an injunction for anti-social behaviour against a tenant. The landlord claimed that the tenant was obstructing a passageway and trespassing in a garden. The tenant claimed that he had been in adverse possession of the land and made an application to the Land Registry to substantiate his claim. Did the county court have jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claim while dealing with the landlord’s application for an injunction?
The High Court explained that adverse possession has no effect on title to registered land. Consequently, squatters must make a successful application for registration to deprive a registered proprietor of title to land.
The new statutory procedure puts the Land Registry in charge and the court cannot adjudicate unless and until a squatter has made an application for registration, because there is nothing for the court to adjudicate upon until then. However, the court does retain jurisdiction to determine whether squatters have acquired title under the new regime if they are defending possession proceedings brought against them. Indeed, squatters cannot apply for registration in such circumstances: section 98(5) and schedule 6 para 1(3) Land Registration Act 2002.
The landlord sought to rely on the provisions of section 21 of the County Courts Act 1984, which empowers the county court to hear and determine any action for the recovery of land, or in which title to any hereditament comes in question. However, the landlord was seeking an injunction to put a stop to the tenant’s anti-social behaviour and the 1984 Act could not possibly take precedence over the specific provisions set out in the Land Registration Act 2002.
It would be wrong for the county court to usurp functions that must be discharged, in the first instance, by the Land Registry. Therefore, the application to the Land Registry must be allowed to proceed. The county court could then deal with the application for the injunction in the light of the outcome of the tenant’s application to be registered with title to the land.
It is worth noting that the 2002 Act requires the Land Registry to refer disputes to its adjudicator to determine. However, the adjudicator can direct one or other of the parties to commence court proceedings instead. The courts also continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction over the adjudicator and have, on occasion, been involved in parallel proceedings issued to bring matters to a head where an adjudication has been delayed: see EF Clarke (Goldsmiths) Ltd v William Sapcote & Sons Ltd [2006] EWHC 2870 (Ch).
Allyson Colby, property law consultant
