Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran
A squatter who enclosed land and padlocked the only gate had an intention to possess, even though he knew the owner intended to use the land in the future.
Facts
Buckinghamshire County Council owned a plot of land which it intended to use for a road diversion in the future. Mr Moran's predecessors in title, who owned the neighbouring house, began to maintain the plot as part of their garden, and Mr Moran later put a new lock and chain on the only gate, so that the plot could be reached only through his garden. The council took no action for more than 12 years, and then sought possession.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Moran had acquired title by adverse possession. Slade LJ said that what is required is an intention to possess, not an intention to own. By enclosing the land and padlocking the gate, Mr Moran had shown that he intended to exclude everyone, including the council. The fact that he knew that the council planned to use the land for a road in the future did not prevent his possession from being adverse. The old rule in Leigh v Jack, that a squatter's possession is not adverse where the owner has a future use for the land, was not followed.
Related cases on adverse possession
- Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co Ltd [1963] AC 510
- Hounslow London Borough Council v Minchinton (1997) 74 P & CR 221
- IAM Group plc v Chowdrey [2012] EWCA Civ 505
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, [2003] 1 AC 419
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45
- Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex D 264
- Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] 1 AC 990
- Port of London Authority v Ashmore [2010] EWCA Civ 30, [2010] 1 All ER 1139
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
