ADVERSE POSSESSION ESSAY

2021 MAY ZONE B

‘’The Land Registration Act 2002, in conjunction with more recent legal developments, has
fundamentally altered the way the law balances the interests of a registered proprietor
and those of an adverse possessor’’
How far do you agree this is, and should be, so?

INTRODUCTION PARA 1

*explain the statement/question and what it requires you to do

*explain your structure of the essay and whether you agree OR disagree

*has LRA 2002 and recent legal developments altered the way the law balances the interests of a
registered proprietor and those of a squatter? EXPLAIN THAT LRA 2002 ONLY APPLIES TO REGISTERED
LAND NOT UNREGISTERED LAND (which is instead governed by SECTION 75 LRA 1925 and
LIMITATION ACT 1980)

*THE CHANGES MADE BY LRA 2002

Yes because, LRA 2002- abolished the limitation period and introduced 10 years that MUST be
completed by the adverse possessor being in possession continuously on the land. also, LRA 2022
introduced the formality of notifying the paper title owner once squatter completes 10 years and
makes an application to be registered, it also allows paper title owner to object.

HOWEVER- LRA 2002 does not concern where 12 years are completed before 13 th October 2003
(before the LRA came into force) OR Also, even though LRA brought about fundamental changes, it
only affects the formalities aspect and not the initial common law requirements that are essential to
evidence adverse possession like factual possession and intention to possess. ALTHOUGH LRA 2002
attempts to restrict the chances of the squatter gaining title through adverse possession, it still
provides three exceptions where even after objection by paper title owner, the squatter can
regardless be registered. This is stated in schedule 6 LRA 2002 whereby in instances involving a
boundary dispute, or through proprietary estoppel or also where the squatter has an independent
proprietary claim to the land.

A LOOPHOLE where squatter objects and does nothing for another 2 years to evict the squatter, in
which case squatter can apply again and be registered. Therefore, even though LRA 2002 and recent
legal developments have fundamentally changed or altered the way the rights of the paper title
owner and the squatter are balanced, it would be reckless even for a lawyer, to advice a client
claiming adverse possession on a registered land to not go ahead and make an application to the
land registry just because the paper title owner objects because, one would argue that the sqatter’s
rights does not simply end when the paper title owner objects. Even afterwards, the squatter has the
period of two additional years where they can remain adversely possessing the land after which they
can apply for registration for the second time; provided that the paper title owner has not done
anything to evict the squatter within those two years.
Clearly, the law does not assist the person who sleeps on their rights.
RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

* CROOK V ZURICH ASSURANCE 2019

*DOWSE V CITY OF BRADFORD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 2020

*it is illegal now to adversely possess residential properties (section 144 of the Legal Aid, Senttencing
and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012)

*THE ECHR RULED THAT ADVERSE POSSESSION IS CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

*CHAPTER 17 OF LAW COMMISSION 2018 ‘’UPDATING THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002”

*LAW COMMISSION REPORT (LAW COM 271) ‘’LAND REGISTRATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY- A
CONVEYANCING REVOLUTION LAW COM NO 271’’

DO YOU SUPPORT THE CHANGES MADE BY LRA 2002 WHICH ATTTEMPTS TO PROTECT PAPER
TITLE OWNERS MORE?
*THE CENTRAL CONCEPT of adverse possession itself is to ensure the efficient use of land.
why would someone who purchases land do nothing on it or uses it in any productive way?
Of course, it is in the liberty of every person to use his land his own way, perhaps they may
be having future plans for it and are in the process of making plans in the meantime while
squatter is in occupation- but, purchasing land and leaving it idle completely for 10-12 years
without occasionally checking the land clearly means contrary intentions of the paper title
owner when it comes to actually using the land…
*the LRA 2002 can be justified in a way that it allows 2 years time for the paper title owner
to evict the squatter, and a professionally advised owner would definitely do it promptly
without further delay. It also works in a way to give another chance to a squatter to be
registered . and although, it may seem on the outset that LRA 2002 favours the paper title
owner, it has opened schedule 6 exceptions for the squatter which is otherwise not available
under LRA 1925 or the LIMITATION ACT 1980
*does it really achieve the mirror principle? Although ownership and occupation are two
distinct ideas and the LRA 2002 successfully achieves the aim of the mirror principle, will it
lead to more and more people squatting on land without attempting to even apply to the
land registry in the hope of not notifying the owners? In that case, leading to illegal transfers
of land (which will never be known) complicating future conveyances on that land.
*However, the ‘’indefeasibility of title’’ concept of UK land registration means that only the
individual who is registered in the land registry owns the title regardless of whatever is
recorded elsewhere. THE LRA 2002, by imposing a further restriction on squatters goes on to
give effect to this concept through the formality of notifying the paper title owner- it shows
the importance of the concept of registration in registered land and this can be clearly seen
when contrasted with adverse possession of unregistered land for which the LRA 2002 does
NOT operate. Clearly, the registration of title in the first place is to protect/ secure the legal
title of the owner and what the LRA 2002 attempts to do is just that- to secure the legal title
of the paper owner. LRA 2002 does not apply to unregistered land because the paper title
owner cannot be traced and this is justifiable on the basis that the owner of the freehold has
not taken their positive obligation to register the title in the first place, therefore their
chances of losing out to a squatter is highly likely. IN CONCLUSION, the LRA 2002 and recent
legal developments have clearly altered the balance of rights of adverse possessors and
paper title owners but this change is clearly justifiable as highlighted in the above discussion.