Thorpe v Frank
Paving over a front garden and treating it as one's own could amount to adverse possession, even though the land remained open to the street.
Facts
Mrs Frank owned a house whose front garden was laid to paving. The adjoining strip of front garden belonged to a neighbour. Mrs Frank paved over the whole area, including the strip, and treated it as her own for more than ten years, although it was not fenced off. She applied to be registered as owner of the strip. The owner of the strip objected, arguing that the paving did not amount to possession because the land was open to the public.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Frank had acquired title by adverse possession. The paving of the strip, which was a substantial act changing its character, together with her other acts of treating the land as her own, was sufficient to show factual possession and an intention to possess. The fact that the land was open and that members of the public could walk across it did not prevent her from being in possession, given the nature of the land, a small front garden.
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
- Ofulue v Bossert [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] 1 AC 990
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.
