Ofulue v Bossert
An offer to buy land, made without prejudice in settlement negotiations, could not be used as an acknowledgment of the owner's title to stop time running.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Ofulue owned a house in London, which was occupied by Mrs Bossert and her son, without permission, from 1981. In 1987 the Ofulues brought possession proceedings. During those proceedings, Mrs Bossert's solicitors wrote a letter, headed without prejudice, offering to buy the house. The proceedings were not pursued. Later, the Ofulues brought fresh proceedings, and Mrs Bossert claimed title by adverse possession. The Ofulues argued that the letter was a written acknowledgment of their title, which would have stopped time running under section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the letter could not be relied on as an acknowledgment, because it was protected by the without prejudice rule, which prevents statements made in a genuine attempt to settle a dispute from being used as evidence. Lord Neuberger said that the policy of encouraging parties to settle disputes required that such statements should not be used, even as an acknowledgment of title. Mrs Bossert had therefore acquired title by adverse possession.
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 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
- 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.
