FF erected a barrier and padlocked the area connecting her house with the grassland and extended her use of the grassland. Does FF have a claim to the land? If, yes, can it be recovered by Mr BB?
Trespassers may acquire a right to the land if it satisfies the criteria of adverse possession, stated by the case of Pye (J.A.) Oxford Ltd v Graham [2002]. Adverse possession is based on the idea that if a paper title owner fails to remove a squatter or trespasser from his land within a certain time period, he may face legal consequences. To establish a successful claim in adverse possession there must be factual possession and intention to possess. Enclosing land,
such as padlocking the access is held to amount to factual possession in the case of Seddon v Smith [1877]37. The adverse possessor must intend to exclude the paper title owner. An intention to own the land is not required, just an intention to possess is required.
The last requirement is the land not to be earmarked, which now does affect the adverse possessor only in certain cases. As the present case law states that the intended future use rarely would prevent the adverse possession. Although, in the case of Beulane Properties v
Palmer [2006]38, there was an effort to recreate the principle of earmarking for future use in the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. For registered land, a minimum of 10 years of adverse possession is required before the possessor can apply to the Land Registry. If all
requirements are satisfied, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as the proprietor of the registered estate, stated by schedule 6 paragraph 1 of the LRA 2002. The legal owner
has 65 working days to review and object to the squatter's application. Yet the adverse possessor may rely on a reasonable belief that the land was his.…
