In my judgment, this approach fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. The farmhouse at Manor Farm is approached by a private drive owned with Manor Farm which runs from a public highway to the farmhouse. The Court of Appeal applied the Limitation Act and confirmed that the Crown as well as any individual person could rely on this Act equally.
The Grahams were aware that this disputed land was owned by Pye and had been acquired by Pye in the hope of being able to develop it in the future. Article 1 states that the owner is entitled to peaceable enjoyment of his possessions and although the result of adverse possession does deprive the owner of this, by virtue of the Limitation Actthe Act itself does not deprive the owner of its rights.
The Court of Appeal took the view that it was obliged to follow the decision in Pye in relation to the current case. The HL held that as Graham had factually possessed the land and had intended to possess the land he had acquired beneficial ownership of it by adverse possession and was entitled to be registered as the owner under the Limitation Act and s75 of the Land Registration Act At the time the Grahams acquired Manor Farm, they were aware that the disputed land had been used as grazing land under agreements between the owners of Manor Farm and Pye.
The Ofulues appealed the decision of the County Court. He returned in and in commenced proceedings for possession. It limited the use of the disputed land to grazing or mowing for one cut of grass and the grazier was obliged to restrict the use of the disputed land to the grazing of sheep, cattle and horses.
Until Pye was the owner of Henwick Manor together with a substantial amount of surrounding land. From then on, until his unhappy death inthe farming activities at Manor Farm were the day-to-day responsibility of their son Michael Graham.
It is not clear whether the Grahams vacated the land prior to the commencement of the agreement on 1 February The Court of Appeal took the view that it was obliged to follow the decision in Pye in relation to the current case.
They sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer ofand were quite prepared to pay. Pye did not enter into another agreement because he wanted to develop the land but the Grahams continued to occupy the land.
A couple had a granted the mortgage over their property to secure the liabilities of the husband. The Grahams were also led to believe that Pye would soon be making an application for planning permission and did not want the disputed land to be grazed because such grazing, in Pye's view, might damage the prospects of obtaining permission.
He harrowed, rolled and fertilised the land and spread dung and straw in February and March Midland Bank v Green  A. It is sometimes said that ouster by the squatter is necessary to constitute dispossession: But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act.
However, Graham continued to use the land as he had been previously, during which time it was accessible only through a gate which Graham kept padlocked. Finally, 'the registered land regime in the United Kingdom is a reflection of a long-established system in which a term of years' possession gave sufficient title to sell.
It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. Further proceedings were entered into in the years that followed and in the case came before the County Court which ruled that the Ofulues' title had been extinguished in There will be a "dispossession" of the paper owner in any case where there being no discontinuance of possession by the paper owner a squatter assumes possession in the ordinary sense of the word.
Pye is a company that owned some registered land adjacent to a farm, owned by Mr Graham. Therefore they did not operate to act as an interruption to the period of possession required in order to establish adverse possession. Pye has no rights of access over the driveway.
Unregistered land still not secure - The cumulative effect of the House of Lords decision in Pye and the decision of the Grand Chamber is that this general principle of adverse possession continues, and that it does not conflict with Article 1 of the Human Rights Act.
Mr Bossert counterclaimed on the basis that they had carried out extensive works to the property and had been offered a year lease in return for doing so. The fair balance required by A1P1 had not been violated.J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham  3 WLR Pye owned Henwick manor and a substantial amount of land.
In he sold off the farmhouse and some of the land and retained the disputed land, which consisted of four fields, with a view to develop it in the future. HOUSE OF LORDSLord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENTIN THE CAUSEJ A PYE (OXFORD) LTD AND OTHERS(RESPONDENTS)kitaharayukio-arioso.com AND ANOTHER(APPELLANTS)ON 4 JULY  UKHL 30LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILLMy.
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham  3 WLR Pye owned Henwick manor and a substantial amount of land. In he sold off the farmhouse and some of the land and retained the disputed land, which consisted of four fields, with a view to develop it in the future.
Cited – Baxter v Mannion ChD (Bailii,  EWHC (Ch),  NPC 38,  1 WLR ) B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M.
B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it.
Recent cases in England dealing with adverse possession have applied the decisions from the House of Lords case of J A Pye (Oxford) Limited v Graham  UKHL30,  1A.C and from the. Cited – Baxter v Mannion ChD (Bailii,  EWHC (Ch),  NPC 38,  1 WLR ) B appealed against an order for rectification against him of the land register returning ownership to M.
B had obtained registration with possessory title, claiming to have kept horses on the field for many years in adverse possession of it.Download