Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Land, Registered Land, Planning law etc.

Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby Michael » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:06 am

I Don't think the case summary for Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482 is on this website and I have no link to the case summary I'm afraid

The court of appeal in the above case clarified the law on the ''without force'' requirement for prescription and ruled that signage telling trespassers to get off your land is sufficient to prevent a prescriptive right from being acquired. .


My mind sometimes thinks to much and I have a question.


There is a legal principle that rights to property cannot be acquired by force and adverse possession just like prescription must also not be by force. So if I erect signs telling trespassers looking to adversely possess my land to get off, it they don't and ignore the signs would I have a good cause to ask a court to rule the adverse possessors possession was with force .
Michael
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:48 pm

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby atticus » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:30 am

Go to http://www.bailii.org and search for winterburn.

The judgments of the various decisions as the case made its way through the courts are all there.

I find it hard to see that simply ignoring your sign could amount to force.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby atticus » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:35 am

Having had a quick skim read of the judgment, it seems that my last point may be wrong.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:16 am

The C of A decision is certainly contrary to what was generally believed to be the case, but that is often the case with C of A decisions.

The case has no significance in relation to acquiring title by adverse possession. The acquisition of easements by prescription and the acquisition of land by adverse possession are two distinct things even if they achieve what looks like a similar outcome. With prescription there is a presumption of a grant. With adverse possession, title arises by the mere fact of possession (assuming of course that it is adverse and cannot be otherwise explained). After the requisite period, statute intervenes to deprive the ousted owner of his title either, in the case of unregistered land, by extinguishing his title, or, in the case of registered land, by transferring it to the adverse possessor. Despite what appears to be the contrary because these days close attention is paid to "examining title", that is looking at deeds or a copy of a land register, possession is still the basis of title. "Without force" does not come into it, because historically it was not unusual for landowners to be dispossessed by force of arms and the law sought to preserve the peace.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby atticus » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:08 pm

Getting a possessory title by adverse possession of registered land is very far from straightforward. The procedure is complicated, and the registered proprietor is given a chance to do something about it. This follows the Pye cases and the Human Rights Act - property rights.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:14 pm

atticus wrote:This follows the Pye cases and the Human Rights Act - property rights.

I never did get how a company is entitled to human rights. :?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 8892
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Winterburn v Bennett [2016] EWCA Civ 482

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:24 pm

Have there been any cases on the changes introduced by the LRA 2002?
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm


Return to Land Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest