- Paving alone sufficient for adverse possession (Thorpe v Frank)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What is the law in this area?
- What was the issue on appeal to the Court of Appeal?
- What did the Court of Appeal decide?
- What was the Court of Appeal’s reasoning?
- Exclusive possession
- Dealing as occupying owner
- Paving alone
- Nature of use
- Case details
Property analysis: The Court of Appeal held that paving alone can constitute sufficient factual possession, for the purposes of an adverse possession claim, but it depends on the facts of each case. The nature of the land—here an open forecourt—is key.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial