Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
Adams v Batt
(2001) 82 P & CR 406, [2001] All ER (D) 156 (May)
Court: Ch D
Judgment Date: 11/05/2001
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Applied | Inglewood Investments Co Ltd v Baker | [2002] EWCA Civ 1733, [2003] 2 P & CR 319, 146 Sol Jo LB 255, [2002] All ER (D) 378 (Nov) | CA | 08/11/200 |
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Applied | Kingsmill v Millard | (1855) 19 JP 661, 11 Exch 313, 3 CLR 1022, 25 LTOS 203 | pre-SC | circa 1855 |
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - LAND - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LANDLORD CLAIMING ADVERSE POSSESSION BY TENANT OF LAND BELONGING TO THIRD PARTY - WHETHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING NECESSARY INTENTION TO POSSESS TO EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.
The proceedings concerned an area of land (the disputed land) located near to Amersham in Buckinghamshire. Prior to 1952, the disputed land was part of farmland owned by F. By two conveyances dated 11 March 1952, F effected, by the first conveyance, the sale of part of his land to the claimant and, by the second, the sale of the disputed land to B&W Ltd, by way of a sub-sale agreed between the claimant and B&W Ltd. The second conveyance included a covenant by B&W Ltd to fence off the boundary between the disputed land and the land conveyed to the claimant; however, no such fence was ever erected. Following the 1952 conveyances, the claimant received all of the rent payable under an agricultural tenancy of the land, including the disputed land. On the expiration of the existing tenancy in 1960, the claimant granted a new tenancy to J, and thereafter a further new tenancy to H from 1965 to 1988. The land conveyed to B&W Ltd was acquired by Chiltern District Council, who registered the land for the first time on 27 November 1991. On 13 November 1997, title was transferred to the defendants, who were registered as proprietors on 8 January 1998. The claimant claimed title to the disputed land, alleging that his tenant, H, had acquired possessory title to the disputed land by exercising more than 12 years of adverse possession, the benefit of which operated as an accretion to H's tenancy, which passed to the claimant on the determination of the tenancy. By an order of the deputy solicitor to the Land Registry dated 7 December 2000, rectification of the register was directed in favour of the claimant and the defendants lodged the instant appeal. The issues for the court on appeal were, inter alia, (i) whether H was in factual possession for the necessary period of 12 years; and (ii) whether H had the necessary intention to possess.Held The appeal would be allowed.On the first issue, there was evidence on which to conclude that H enjoyed uninterrupted adverse possession of the land throughout the relevant period. With regard to the second issue, however, it appeared that H believed that the claimant was the title owner of the disputed land and that his use of the disputed land was with the claimant's consent. That evidence was inconsistent with the contention that H had the necessary intention to occupy to the exclusion of all others. On the evidence, therefore, he did not believe himself to be in adverse possession of the land, nor did he intend himself to be in adverse possession, and thus the claim to title by adverse possession failed.
