Adverse Possession – Couple Win Legal Title to Disputed Garden Plots

15th September 2023 By

Even if you do not hold legal title to a plot of land, you may well be entitled to have it transferred into your name if you have been in adverse possession of it for over 10 years and you have reasonably believed throughout that it belongs to you. That is precisely what happened in a guideline Upper Tribunal (UT) case.

The case concerned substantial parts of a couple’s garden that they had treated as their own since they purchased their home in 1996. The relevant land fell within the boundaries of their neighbours’ property, but the couple applied to transfer legal title to it to themselves under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Following a hearing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that they had been in adverse possession of the land for the required 10-year period. In dismissing their application, however, it rejected the man’s evidence that, from the date on which they purchased the property, he had held a firm belief that the relevant land belonged to them. The FTT ruled that any such belief would, in any event, not have been reasonable.

Upholding the couple’s challenge to that outcome, the UT noted the man’s evidence that, at the time of the purchase, the relevant land was physically included in their garden by means of a post and rail fence. He further testified that the vendor had informed him that the fence’s position was compliant with a boundary agreement he had reached with a previous owner of the neighbours’ land.

The reasons given by the FTT for doubting his credibility were flimsy and insufficient to justify a finding that he was lying when he said that he believed he owned the relevant land. Such a conclusion was both irrational, being unsupported by evidence, and unfair. The UT substituted its own findings that he was telling the truth and that his belief that he owned all the land within the fence was reasonable. The ruling meant that the couple were entitled to be registered as legal proprietors of the relevant land.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...