Adverse possession

This Overview sets out the principal resources which are available within the Adverse Possession sub-topic.

Practice Notes

The law on adverse possession differs depending on whether the land is registered or unregistered, and when the period of adverse possession was completed. There is one regime for all unregistered land as well as registered land where the period of adverse possession was completed before 13 October 2003, and another for registered land where the period of adverse possession was completed on or after 13 October 2003.

Practice Note: Establishing adverse possession of land considers the essential elements to any claim of adverse possession, ie factual possession, intention to possess, and the required period of possession. It also discusses various uses of land which may provide sufficient evidence of factual possession and/or an intention to possess.

Practice Note: Claiming title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 or the Land Registration Act 1925 explains when it is possible to claim title by way of adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) or the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) in relation

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents