The English law relating to adverse possession appears to have suffered a major setback, following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, delivered in November.
The case concerned freehold occupation of agricultural land by Mr and Mrs Graham, under a grazing agreement granted in 1983 by Pye Limited, the freehold owner of the land.
At the expiration of the agreement, Pye asked the Grahams to vacate the land, but they declined to do so and sought an extension of the grazing tenancy; Pye refused to grant their request. However, the Grahams remained in occupation and, in 1997, registered cautions at the Land Registry in support of their claim to ownership of the land by adverse possession.
Pye issued proceedings to cancel the registrations and to recover possession of the land.
The Grahams contested Pye's proceedings, relying upon the Limitation Act 1980, which provides that a person cannot bring an action to recover land following twelve years or more of adverse possession by another. The Grahams also relied on provisions in the Land Registration Act 1925, stating that after twelve years of adverse possession the registered owner holds the land in trust for the squatter.
The case advanced to the House of Lords, which upheld the Grahams’ claim.
Pye appealed to the European Court, contesting that that the United Kingdom law on adverse possession, by the application of which (in their case) they lost land with development potential to a neighbour, operated in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. The European Court concluded that application of the 1925 and 1980 Acts to deprive Pye of their title to the land imposed on them ‘an individual and excessive burden…….upsetting the fair balance between the demands of public interest on the one hand and the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on the other’. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 1.
The European Court of Human Rights appears, at one fell swoop, to have swept aside domestic legislation which has been in existence for 80 years, but it remains to be seen how the decision will be viewed in future English cases and whether the considerable monetary value of the land was the key reason for the decision, rather than a blanket objection, by the European Court, to the established English law of adverse possession.