Treloar v Nute
A squatter can acquire title by adverse possession even if the owner was not inconvenienced by the squatter's acts.
Facts
Mr Treloar owned a small plot of land. Mr Nute and his father used the plot for grazing, storing timber and other things, fenced it in, and began to build a bungalow on it. Mr Treloar sought to recover the land, arguing, relying on Leigh v Jack, that he had not been inconvenienced by Mr Nute's use of the land, so there was no adverse possession.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Nute had acquired title by adverse possession. Sir John Pennycuick said that, where a squatter has been in possession for the limitation period, the owner's title is extinguished, and there is no requirement that the owner must have been inconvenienced or that the possession must have been inconsistent with the owner's purpose. The only question is whether the squatter had factual possession and the intention to possess.
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.
