EV-0643 — Allen & Overy property review: Batsford Estates (1983) Co Ltd v Taylor [2005], referring to BP Properties Ltd v Buckler

Catalogue record

Transcript

Law-firm property review note, "© Allen & Overy" (issue date not visible).

Case 3: Batsford Estates (1983) Co Ltd v Taylor and anor [2005] EWCA 489

Facts: In 1970 the estate agreed to grant three brothers a tenancy of the farmhouse until the death of the last survivor. The written tenancy mistakenly said it was actually from year to year. One brother died in 1984. In 1985 the estate served a notice to quit on the two remaining brothers. In the course of correspondence, the brothers threatened proceedings to rectify the original tenancy. Eventually, in the light of the legal advice they received, the estate decided to let sleeping dogs lie. A second brother died in 1987. No payments of the £1 rent were made and the estate did not attempt to enforce any of the covenants in the tenancy. The third brother died in 2000, leaving everything to his son. Issue: Could the son claim to have acquired title to the farmhouse by adverse possession since 1985?

Decision: No. The brothers had asserted a right to occupy by virtue of the tenancy. The estate's passivity since the 1985 notice to quit was because they recognised the reality of the position that they were in a landlord and tenant relationship. Even if the notice to quit was effective (thus ending the tenancy), the estate gave implied permission to the brothers to remain by accepting the situation and not enforcing the notice to quit. Thus neither the brothers nor the son had the necessary intention to possess the farmhouse.

Comment: These cases show how doing a favour, allowing someone in before documenting an arrangement or just letting sleeping dogs lie can land an owner in difficulties. Fortunately, in all these cases the decision was resolved in favour of the owner. It is always better to document these sorts of arrangements expressly, to avoid argument. All three cases referred to BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1988] 55 P&CR 337, in which the Court of Appeal had upheld a unilateral licence granted by the landowner to the occupier as preventing her claiming title by adverse possession. Where the occupier is not responding to approaches, this can be a useful tactic.

The scope for these problems to arise in registered land has been reduced by two recent developments: • the decision in Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer (reported in last month's review) which held that, if any period of the 12 years' adverse possession relied on by the occupier was after 2 October 1988, the Human Rights Act 1999 was engaged. The result is that it is contrary to the owner's human rights to deprive him of his property, unless the squatter's use of it was inconsistent with the owner's own use or intended use (eg a squatter grazing horses on a site in a landbank will not be in adverse possession); • the Land Registration Act 2002, which has created a new regime for adverse possession of registered land, invariably gives the owner notice before he loses his property and usually gives him a last chance to reclaim it. © Allen & Overy

Transcription note: Screen capture of a law-firm client review (2005 era, issue month not visible). Transcribed in full from "Case 3" down; the preceding cases are not in the capture. "Human Rights Act 1999" is as printed (the Act is the Human Rights Act 1998).

Destination

• Where the original is held: Original: an Allen & Overy property review. 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 law-firm client note recording that three 2005 cases referred to the decision, and presenting the unilateral licence as "a useful tactic" for landowners where an occupier does not respond.

Related records

• Cites: EV-0080