Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Adverse possession; section 75(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (repealed 13 October 2003) J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and another [2002] is an English land law judgment from the final court of appeal at the time, the House of Lords , on adverse possession .
The Land Registration Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 21) was an act of Parliament in the United Kingdom that codified, prioritised and extended the system of land registration in England and Wales. [1] It has largely been repealed, and updated in the Land Registration Act 2002.
These rules are much more difficult to satisfy than the common law with regard to adverse possession, although it is now clear that all rules of adverse possession (in unregistered land, under the LRA 1925 and under the LRA 2002) are human rights compliant, see generally the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in ...
However, in the LRA 2002 adverse possession of registered land became much harder. The rules for unregistered land remained as before. The rules for unregistered land remained as before. But under the LRA 2002 Schedule 6, paragraphs 1 to 5, after 10 years the adverse possessor was entitled to apply to the registrar to become the new registered ...
Adverse possession is a legal concept that occurs when a trespasser, someone with no legal title, can gain legal ownership over a piece of property if the actual owner does not challenge it within ...
Second, technically the transfer must take place under Law of Property Act 1925, section 52(1) by a deed (though there is no reason why this cannot be combined with step 1, by using a deed for the sale!). Third, the land must be registered for the legal interest to take effect under LRA 2002 sections 27 to 30.
Mr. Wakefield for the plaintiffs relied, in one of his arguments to the contrary, on the wording of section 20(1)(b) of the Land Registration Act 1925 under which, as quoted above, a disposition of registered land by the registered proprietor is subject "unless the contrary is expressed on the register, to the overriding interests, if any ...
In dismissing Lambeth's appeal, Wilson J upheld Mr Ellis' claim for adverse possession, confirming it met all the requirements under the Limitation Act 1980 (as found by the recorder). He dismissed the council's claim that failing to respond to a community charge form amounted to estoppel by representation and thus had not continuously occupied ...