Adverse possession — Appellant purchasing land — Former tenant of land claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession — Judge finding adverse possession established — Whether former tenant required to demonstrate possession — Whether possession in fact established — Appeal dismissed
The respondent farmer held a tenancy of an area of rough grazing land abutting a former quarry in Caernarfon. He paid rent, and later supplied services in kind, to the owners of the quarry. In the mid-1970s, the quarry was sold to D, who made no contact with the respondent and made no demands for rent. After 1973, the respondent stopped paying rent. In September 1991, the appellant acquired title to the quarry and part of the grazing land. It granted to J a licence to use the land.
The respondent brought an action for trespass against J, and also claimed against the appellant for possessory title of the grazing land. The judge found that the respondent had been in continuous possession from 1971, and that the possession had been adverse, for the purposes of para 5 of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980, since the termination of the tenancy upon his ceasing to pay rent. He concluded that the owners of the land had lost any right to recover the land upon expiry of the 12-year limitation period set out in section 15(1) of the Act.
On appeal, the appellant disputed the judge’s finding as to the respondent’s continuous possession of the land. It contended that possession could not simply be assumed in para 5 cases once rent had ceased to be paid, and that the respondent had been obliged to demonstrate that he was still in possession after that date. The respondent argued that possession could be deemed in para 5 cases, and that it was appropriate to take a different approach from that in squatter cases (para 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act), in which the absence of any pre-existing explanation of the squatter’s presence on the land made it necessary to show that their occupation had the quality of possession.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Former tenant cases under para 5 differed from squatter cases under para 1 in that squatters were, and former tenants were not, required to demonstrate that they had the necessary animus possidendi, in addition to actual possession of the land. Possession by a former tenant could be taken to be adverse simply because, after the termination of a tenancy, it remained in possession without the landlord’s consent. It was none the less necessary for the former tenant to establish that it was in fact in possession, and it was possible that in an extreme case of a former tenant with a very limited connection with the land, it might fail to do so. That was not the case here, however, and the respondent had succeeded in showing possession throughout the relevant limitation period. He had accordingly acquired possessory title to the grazing land.
Adrian Cooper (instructed by Thomas Graham, of Cardiff) appeared for the appellants; Bridget Williamson (instructed by Breese Gwyndaf, of Porthmadog) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister