Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you! Try us!

Neither the European Courts nor the Land registration Act 2002 have come to the rescue of landowners who sleep whilst others use their land: land theft by adverse possession is still a reality. - Essay Example

Only on StudentShare
Author : meghan94

Summary

Both the statutes and the case law are going to be analytically examined and evaluated in accordance with their relevance with the…

Extract of sample
Neither the European Courts nor the Land registration Act 2002 have come to the rescue of landowners who sleep whilst others use their land: land theft by adverse possession is still a reality.

tudy will be the following one: The general provisions of the Statutes (LRA 1925 and LRA 2002) will be presented primarily – especially their provisions for the adverse law possession. At a next section the particular aspects of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom) will be presented trying to identify the elements the case that can be used in order to support the position of landowners that are in danger of loosing their land through adverse possession. Finally, the literature that has been published on the particular issue will be developed trying to aligning the assumptions that are stated in the theory with the existed law suggesting changes where the relevant legal orders are not clear or where additional provisions need to be incorporated in current legal orders that regulate the adverse law possession. In other words, the research will be a qualitative one – no data to be involved – while the comparison of the existed legal provisions is considered as necessary in order to formulate a valid assumption on the issue under examination.
In order to understand the law of adverse possession in relation with the land law, we should primarily refer to the specific term as it is used within the relevant legal texts in order to represent the acquisition of land with no legal title. In this context, it is stated that ‘adverse possession is the process by which a "squatter" becomes the legal owner of land by possessing it for a certain period of time, thereby dispossessing the "paper" owner of his title’ (Mace and Jones, 2007). The law of adverse possession has been differentiated through the years under the influence of changes in the legal and social context of Britain. It should be noticed that ‘prior to 2003, a squatter could obtain adverse possession if he demonstrated uninterrupted factual possession of the land and an intention to possess the land for a period of 12 years; however under the 2002 Act, the period of time a squatter is required to be in ...
Download paper

Related Essays

Land Use & Religion
Religious groups and their supporters welcomed the RLUIPA, as the exercise of religion without a physical place of worship was as good as impossible, and therefore any house of worship needs to use land. Municipal authorities have had a tendency to restrict land use by religious groups, as they fail to generate retail and tax revenues, and thereby affect the fortunes of the municipality. It was the impunity with which zoning officials discriminated against religious groups that sought to use land for religious assembly purposes that laid the foundation for RLUIPA. Thus RLUIPA provided the…
2 pages (502 words)
land law
To start with, the Limitation Act 1980 makes provision for a claim for recovery of land only in circumstances where a squatter is in adverse possession, and the action will be statute-barred if it is not commenced within 12 years from the date of the dispossession.2 Schedule 1, Paragraph 8(1) provides as follows:- ‘No right of action to recover land shall be treated as accruing unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run (referred to below in this paragraph as adverse possession); and where under the preceding provisions of this…
4 pages (1004 words)
"The changes made by the Land Registration Act 2002 are likely to be more far-reaching than the great reforms of property law that were made by the 1925 legisla
terest - the question of whether or not an overriding interest could prevail over a disposition arose only when consideration is paid, however the new Act reduces the significance of overriding interests. Moreover, the overriding interest accruing over an entire part of land despite partial occupation, which existed in the old Act, now stands annulled and
6 pages (1506 words)
LAND LAW
He was not regular in visiting his property since he purchased it in year 1952, when he had asked his seller to plant Christmas trees on the land with the idea of harvesting it in later years. However, he could not tend to his land since he was posted at Bonn between the years 1955 to 1967.…
15 pages (3765 words)
To what extent does the orthodox interpretation of proprietary estoppel in situations where third party interests are affected accord with principle? Has the Land Registration Act 2002 brought coherence to this troubled area of law?
doctrine of proprietary estoppel is clearly meritorious, the ad hoc development of the doctrine has been attacked, with some commentators labelling it as a “loose cannon”. The enforcement of proprietary the estoppel doctrine clearly has ramifications for property transactions in context of third party interests, which is further compounded by the judicial blurring of the distinction between claims for beneficial interests in land under implied trust, which is inherently complex.…
8 pages (2008 words)
Outline and critically examine the procedural and substantive changes in the law on land registration brought about by the Land Registration Act 2002. Is land r
that the ostensibly restricted paradigm for land registration under the LRA 2002 narrows the extent and enforceability of third party proprietary rights, which in turn strengthens the position of a third party purchaser under the LRA 2002.…
14 pages (3514 words)
‘The law relating to adverse possession has been fundamentally changed by the Land Registration Act 2002’. Critically evaluate this statement with reference to the justifications for changes to this area of the law.
Bryant v Foot (1867) Cockburn CJ came to the conclusion that adverse possession could be proven ‘not on the ground that possession over a given period gave an indefeasible right, but on the assumption, where possession or enjoyment had been carried back as far as living memory would go, that a grant had once existed which had since been lost. 1’…
8 pages (2008 words)