EV-0642 — Student land-law paper citing BP Properties v Buckler (document-sharing site)

Catalogue record

Transcript

Document-sharing page; address bar (as text): scribd.com/doc/49570337/land-law-essay

neighbours aware of his project and use of the land. This fact, endorses the argument that the enjoyment of the land by Jeremy is not deliberately concealed […] but it is as open as it must be ('Purbrick v London Borough of Hackney' ⁷). Regarding the freehold owners' intention to build a permanent house on the plot, this is immaterial and does not prevent Jeremy from succeeding in a claim in adverse possession ('Ofulue v Bossert' ⁸).

Furthermore, the possession of the land by Jeremy must be adverse. Meaning that, the adversary must stay or use the land without the permission of the paper owner either express or implied and without thinking of having such permission ('JA. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham' ⁹). In addition, the adversary must not acknowledge in any way the title of the original owner ('BP Properties v Buckler' ¹⁰). Considering the facts of Jeremy's case, no such permission or acknowledgement appears to take place. On the contrary, Jeremy building a wind turbine proves the absence of a permission. It is evident that the freehold owners aim to build a house on the premises. If Jeremy was occupying the land with the consent of the owner, the owner would possibly be aware of his intention to install a wind turbine and use the land as he did and would prevent any attempt by Jeremy to build it. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Jeremy occupies the land and acts in the way he does with the permission of the owner. As a matter of fact, possession is adverse.

Transcription note: Screen capture of a student essay. Transcribed in full except two words in the first paragraph, marked […], left out under this site's word list. "Jeremy" is the fictional party in the essay question. Footnote numbers kept; the footnotes themselves are not in the capture.

Destination

• Where the original is held: Original: a student paper on a document-sharing site. 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 student answer citing the case for the rule that an adverse possessor must not acknowledge the paper owner's title.

Related records

• Cites: EV-0080