JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham
Adverse possession requires factual possession and an intention to possess, not an intention to own, and a squatter's willingness to pay for use does not defeat the claim.
Facts
The Grahams farmed land next to fields owned by Pye, a property company, which had let them use the fields for grazing under a grazing agreement. When the agreement ended in 1983, Pye refused to grant a new one, because it hoped to obtain planning permission for development, and told the Grahams to leave. The Grahams stayed on and continued to farm the fields for more than 12 years, without paying. They had said that they would be willing to pay for a licence if asked. They then applied to be registered as owners of the land, which was worth millions of pounds.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the Grahams had acquired title by adverse possession. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that there are two elements: a sufficient degree of physical custody and control, which is factual possession, and an intention to exercise such custody and control on one's own behalf and for one's own benefit, which is intention to possess. It is not necessary to have an intention to own the land, or to exclude the owner in all circumstances. The Grahams' willingness to pay if asked did not prevent them from having an intention to possess. The owner's future plans for the land were irrelevant. The House expressed disquiet about the result, which had been changed for registered land by the Land Registration Act 2002.
Related cases on adverse possession
- Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623
- 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 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.
