EV-0633 — Clarke & Greer, Land Law Directions (Oxford University Press, 2008), chapter 6: adverse possession
Catalogue record
| EV ID | EV-0633 |
|---|---|
| Title | Clarke & Greer, Land Law Directions (Oxford University Press, 2008), chapter 6: adverse possession |
| Date of document | 2008 |
| Type | legal commentary |
| Source / publisher | Oxford University Press (Higher Education online resource centre), S. Clarke and S. Greer |
| Reference | Chapter 6 answer guide; cites [1987] 2 EGLR 168; Limitation Act 1980 ss.29–30 |
| Evidence label | SECONDARY SOURCE (CITATION OF EV-0080) |
| Status | HELD (copy received 27 October 2026); transcript below |
Transcript
"OXFORD Higher Education · © Oxford University Press, 2008. All rights reserved." · Clarke & Greer, Land Law Directions, Chapter 6: Adverse possession.
Sending a letter raises the question of 'stopping the clock'.
(a) If the letter threatens to bring possession proceedings, it will probably have no effect. See Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch. 623. There was a different result in Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp v Shell-Mex [1975] Q.B. 94, but this was an old implied licence case, so is probably not good law.
(b) This raises the point in BP Properties v Buckler [1987] 2 EGLR 168. In that case, a unilateral grant of a licence was effective when the squatter did not write back. However, this sits oddly with fact that an acknowledgement of title must be in writing to be effective - LA 1980 s.29 – 30, and therefore this case has been criticized. To be on the safe side, Abu should write back refusing the offer of a licence if he wishes to remain in adverse possession.
Transcription note: Screen capture of an online resource-centre answer guide. Transcribed in full. "Abu" is the fictional party in the textbook exercise.
Destination
- Where the original is held: Original: Oxford University Press online resource centre for Land Law Directions (2008). Our copy: a screen capture held by the family.
- On this site: this artifact page, listed in the Evidence Register, and cited from the judgment page EV-0080.
- Image: the copy held is not reproduced here; the transcript stands in for it (third-party copyright).
Interpretation
A textbook answer guide that treats the case as authority that a unilateral licence was effective when the occupier did not write back, and records that the decision has been criticised because an acknowledgement of title must be in writing (Limitation Act 1980, ss.29–30).
Related records
- Cites: EV-0080
Cited on
2 pages link here.