This is a guide as how to prepare and present your answer.
First you need to have made notes from your reading from the textbook and cases. You need to consolidate your notes from lectures and tutorials.
You have been taught in ILLP and assessed on the use of OSCOLA, which you must use when you present your work. You also need to format your cases which you can see from your reading are usually italicised.
You need to use the correct file type, which is specified in the materials on Moodle.
Outline answer – how to plan
First plan your answer – note the key facts in the problem which raise legal issues and note down cases which you think will be relevant to those facts.
BD are the legal owners of land, it is not clear if this is registered or unregistered land so both consequences will be considered.
1988 O notices the empty land but does nothing.
Spring 1989 cut back bushes and tethered animals – enough??
1990 fertiliser all and planted in part of the land – taking extra steps, on all the land?
1995 entire plot planted and irrigation system set in
1998 – fenced to keep out rabbits and deer.
Meets T and said would pay rent
2021 BD contacted O to tell him to leave.
Outline answer
Issue is whether O has adversely possessed the land and if BD are able to rely on their prior legal title to the land or does O now have superior title Powell v McFarlane.
Rules – must prove has both factual possession and the intention to possess, Pye v Graham.
Rule prove – Factual possession 1988 not showing any factual possession
1989 – there has been some physical control, is this sufficient Pye v Graham grazing can be enough but this is quite minimal Hounslow v Minchiton. Techbild v Chamberlain trivial acts not enough so by analogy children playing and just tethering goats? Boosey v Davis grazing goats not enough even though had installed fencing.
1990 – more steps taken to control the land, Hicks Development v Chaplin cultivation of land can be enough to demonstrate factual possession, in Red House Farm v Catchpole using waste land for shooting was enough. But would it just be to the part cultivated as in Roberts v Swangrove
1995 openly adding value to the land, this is sufficient, no need to fencing but that is good evidence Powell v McFarlane
1998 fencing but contradictory cases on keeping animals in or keeping animals out, range of cases Fruin v Fruin (senile person in), Basildon v Charge (geese in) not enough but in Hounslow v Minchinton preventing dogs escaping was enough as the consequence of keeping in was to keep others out. He wants to keep things out so perhaps this may be enough.
If you have enough facts for factual possession then the next part of the rule
Intention to possess
1988 no evidence of intention, as often the assessment is based on the evidence of factual possession Pye v Graham.
1989, no evidence of acts of exclusion enough, have to assess what has been done Pubrick v Hackney and balance out competing intentions (perhaps a policy issue) arguably only in 1995 is there obvious evidence to demonstrate an intention to possess which a person with due regards to his interests would have been able to discover Roberts v Swangrove.
Issue meeting with T and willing to pay rent show no intention
rule – It is an intention to possess and not to own that is relevant Buckinghamshire v Moran.
Meeting T does not defeat his AP as it is the intention to possess and not to own, Bucks v Moran. Willingness to pay rent does not defeat intention Pye v Graham. Any acknowledgement of BD superior title would need to be in writing, ss29/30 Limitation Act 1980. There is also no implied licence as BD do not have a present use of the land, Leigh v Jack as this was rejected specifically in the Limitation Act Sch 1 para 8.
Conclude that he can argue satisfied AP in 1990 but likely to be 1995
Issue has the title of BD been extinguished
Rule unregistered land Limitation Act 1980 s15 after 12 years the title of BD is extinguished s17 LA and O has the better title.
Apply – if he could argue from 1990 then this happened in 2002 but this is unlikely to be the date more likely to be 1995 so in 2007 O has the better title and it is advisable that he now registers his title under Land Registration Act 2002.
Conclude that BD has lost their title
Rule – registered land, s15 LA 80 after 12 years there will be adverse possession, O will argue that he went into AP in 1990 so that LRA 25 applies s75 and it is held on trust.
Apply – unlikely to be successful in proving both factual and intention in 1990 based on the arguments above
Conclude – BD title is not held on trust for O in 2002
Rule if AP under LRA 02 then title is not subject to being extinguished by long possession.
Apply – likely to prove AP in 1995, so this brings O under LRA02 and O would have the right to apply after 10 years to replace BD as title holder, this hasn’t happened as we can see that BD are still the owners.
Conclude – BD can bring an action to remove O
Issue – can O prevent this
Rule Sch 6 para 5 (4) LRA provides for defences and potentially BD may be estopped from denying him ownership, basic principles of estoppel here. I would only imagine this from the better students.
Apply – he has had long possession, they have not used, he has added value to the land
Conclude – this may be successful
