Squatters — Limitation of action — Respondent entering property to acquire title by adverse possession — Respondent occupying property for more than 12 years — Friend impersonating appellant owner to execute lease in respondent’s favour — Respondent signing counterpart lease — Whether respondent acknowledging appellant’s title — Whether time starting afresh — Appeal allowed
The appellant was a Pakistani national who had lived in the UK from 1974 to 1988. He had bought the disputed property at auction, whereupon it was rented by tenants. He had intended to renovate the property and occupy at least part of it himself. However, in 1988, he returned to Pakistan owing to ill health, leaving friends to oversee the property. It eventually became vacant and was not relet. It then became dilapidated and, ultimately, squatted.
In October 1991, the respondent and her late husband entered the property with a view to acquiring title to it by adverse possession. They changed the locks and carried out repairs and occupied the property together with other unknown persons. They paid all outgoings. In December 1991, the respondent’s husband arranged for a lease and counterpart lease to be drawn up by a solicitor ostensibly between the appellant, as owner of the property, and the respondent as tenant. He also arranged for a friend to impersonate the appellant and for another solicitor, purporting to act for the appellant, to execute a lease of the property to the respondent.
In fact, the appellant had not instructed anyone to prepare a lease of the property or to act on his behalf, and it was only in 1992, when he instructed his current solicitor in respect of the property that, as a result of its inquiries, he obtained a copy of the counterpart lease. The appellant did not commence proceedings for possession until October 2004 and the respondent successfully claimed adverse possession on the ground that she had lived in the property for more than 12 years prior to 13 October 2003, when section 96(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force, disapplying the limitation period under section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 in relation to a registered estate in land.
The appellant appealed, contending that the respondent had not acquired title by adverse possession since she had acknowledged his title in writing in December 1991 when she purported to take a lease of the property: Thus, time ran afresh, pursuant to section 29 of the 1980 Act and the 12-year period had not expired prior to 13 October 2003.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The appellant was the owner in fee simple in possession of the property and was entitled to be registered as its proprietor.
The requirements of section 29 of the 1980 Act had been satisfied. The respondent had acknowledged the appellant’s title when she signed the counterpart lease in December 1991, which stated that the appellant was registered with absolute title and agreed to grant her a lease of the property. The right of action had accrued to the appellant in respect of the respondent’s unauthorised possession of the property. The respondent had made the acknowledgment writing and had signed it.
The counterpart lease that contained the acknowledgment of title had been made to the appellant, as required by section 30(2) of the 1980 Act. The fact that the documents did not create a valid and binding lease of the property did not prevent the statements in the counterpart that the respondent had signed from being an acknowledgment of the appellant’s title for the purposes of the 1980 act.
Gavin Hamilton and Oliver Isaacs (instructed by Daybells) appeared for the appellant; Paul Staddon (instructed by Oliver Fisher) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister