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

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

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents