(1) Michael Derrick Richard Price (2) Jennifer Reese Price v (1) James Francis Bartlett-Ward (2) Paul Bannerman Petrides (3) Clare Frances Saunders (4) Andrew Christopher Hamish Ward (Adverse possession : Intention to possess) [2018] UKFTT 501 (PC) (02 July 2018)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> (1) Michael Derrick Richard Price (2) Jennifer Reese Price v (1) James Francis Bartlett-Ward (2) Paul Bannerman Petrides (3) Clare Frances Saunders (4) Andrew Christopher Hamish Ward (Adverse possession : Intention to possess) [2018] UKFTT 501 (PC) (02 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/2017_0037.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 501 (PC)

[2018] UKFTT 501 (PC). The disputed land, which had been unregistered until 2010 but was admittedly within the paper title which the Respondents first registered in 2010, comprised a steep bank down from a lawn to a field. It had been enclosed within the Applicant lawn owners' land since 1980 at least. It was so enclosed by a scrappy post and wire fence erected by the Respondents at the bottom of the bank beyond which (in the field) was a large thicket of brambles beyond which the Respondents' tenants had erected another stock-proof fence. The Applicants had not done much on the land apart from tip grass cuttings on it and otherwise keep it clear of brambles coming in from the field. However, in 2009 they had erected a new close boarded fence having become fed up with incursions into their garden by the Respondents' tenant's horses. At that time they had referred in correspondence with the Respondents to the fence as belonging to them and had sought compensation for the damage to it. The Respondents had not reacted to that or the erection of the fence. A surveyor who had been instructed to report on incursions onto the Respondents' fields in 2001/2 had said that he thought that any attempt to move the boundary fence to the top of the bank by the Respondents would be met with a claim of adverse possession by the Applicants. Held: Even though the 'acts of possession' relied upon by the Applicants were minimal they had been in effective physical control of the disputed land since their purchase in 1980 with the necessary intention as evidenced by: their use of the land, including particularly keeping it clear of brambles; the surveyor's report; the erection of the fence; and the lack of reaction by the Respondents to that. That claim of adverse possession constituted an interest to which the Respondents' first registration was subject for the purposes of s. 11(4)(b) or (c) and Schedule 1 Land Registration Act 2002 and the Respondents' Title Plan ought to be altered accordingly.

A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKFTT 501 (PC)

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)