Ancient notionally divided wall ceasing to serve as boundary following realignment of street – Whether subsequent acts of apparent owner of wall sufficient to found claim to sole ownership by adverse possession
The defendant (Waterloo) owned a site largely occupied by the Normandie Hotel located on the north side of Raphael Street which partly bisects the angle formed by the junction of Knightsbridge and Brompton Road, London SW7. The plaintiff (Prudential) owned the subsoil of Raphael Street and an area to the south, which included an office building, Caltex House. Prudential also owned Mercury House, which stood to the west of the Normandie Hotel. The southern boundary of the Normandie Hotel was formed by a 30m wall, of which some 7m (the stretch) appeared to be part of the hotel building. In fact the entire wall was a much older structure. In or about 1994 the ownership of the shorter stretch became a critical issue as regards the parties’ respective plans for future development. Waterloo’s plan for modernising the Normandie presupposed that it would be able to demolish the stretch so as to allow heavy vehicles to reach the hotel from Raphael Street. Prudential’s plans, which embraced both the Mercury and the Caltex sites, contemplated the closure of Raphael Street altogether.
In proceedings commenced by Prudential it was held, after considering documents going back to 1838, that, as a matter of paper title, the northern face belonged to Waterloo and the southern to Prudential. The court then turned to Waterloo’s alternative contention that it had acquired the southern face by adverse possession, as regards which Waterloo relied on various events since 1957 when, as a result of a realignment of Raphael Street, the stretch, now abutting the pavement, ceased to function as the boundary of the Caltex site. The court accepted that since 1957 owners of the Normandie had, inter alia, twice let part of the hotel on terms inclusive of the stretch, rerendered the wall on two occasions, attended to all maintenance, raised the wall in order to construct a mansard roof with guttering extending over the southern face, attached security devices to the external surface and cut an opening through the wall to house a night safe. It was further accepted that all those steps were taken more than 12 years before the commencement of the proceedings and without consulting or receiving comments from the owners of Caltex House.
Held Waterloo had obtained good title under the Limitation Act 1980.
1. The possession required under the 1980 Act was the same as that which founded an action for trespass: see Powell v Macfarlane (1977) 38 P&CR 452, per Slade J at p469. Such possession could be exercised in respect of a wall: see for, example, Stedman v Smith (1857) 8 El &Bl 1.
2. Although some of the acts relied on could be explained in terms of easements that did not apply to the raising of the height of the wall nor to the rendering and maintenance work. Looked at in the round, the conduct of the Normandie owners could only sensibly be viewed as that of someone who regarded himself as owner.
3. The same owners had, by their very conduct, demonstrated the necessary intention (animus possidendi) to exclude everyone else, having so behaved as to lead to the common-sense assumption that action would be taken against persons trying to interfere. It was accordingly immaterial that no ostentatious pronouncement (for example, the placing or licensing of posters) had been made.
John Blackburn QC, Timothy Bowles and Robert Clay (instructed by Lovell White Durrant) appeared for the plaintiff; Robin Purchas QC and Guy Newey (instructed by Linklaters& Paines) appeared for the defendant.
