Chapter 4 Scenario questions

. Steve is the owner of a plot at the back of which is an unused parcel of land that is overgrown with nettles and shrubs. This 'waste' land neighbours a further piece of land owned by Tanya who is a keen gardener and likes to keep her garden in excellent condition. Frustrated at the state of Steve's overgrown plot, Tanya entered the land, levelled it, cut back the nettles and shrubs, paved it, and began using it as an extension of her own garden. Title to the land has, at all times, been unregistered. Tanya now claims to be entitled to this land. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the position in law in this unregistered land scenario?

In unregistered land, to succeed in her adverse possession claim, Tanya must demonstrate (1) factual possession of the land; and (2) intention to possess the land. If she can prove a minimum of 12 years' adverse possession, Steve's title will be extinguished and Tanya becomes the new owner of the land: s. 15 Limitation Act 1980.

In unregistered land, to succeed in her adverse possession claim, Tanya must demonstrate (1) factual possession of the land; (2) intention to own the land. If she can prove a minimum of 12 years' adverse possession, Steve's title will be extinguished and Tanya becomes the new owner of the land: s. 15 Limitation Act 1980.

In unregistered land, it is no longer possible to extinguish the original owner's title by way of adverse possession since enactment of the Limitation Act 1980.

In unregistered land, it is only possible to acquire title to the land of another by way of adverse possession if there is evidence that the original owner knew of the adverse possession and consented to it.

. Now imagine we are in registered land. Steve is the owner of a plot at the back of which is an unused parcel of land that is overgrown with nettles and shrubs. This 'waste' land neighbours a further piece of land owned by Tanya who is a keen gardener and likes to keep her garden in excellent condition. Frustrated at the state of Steve's overgrown plot, Tanya entered the land, levelled it, cut back the nettles and shrubs, paved it and began using it as an extension of her own garden. Title to the land has, at all times, been registered. Tanya now claims to be entitled to this land. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the position in law in this registered land scenario?

In registered land, to succeed in her adverse possession claim, Tanya must demonstrate (1) factual possession of the land; (2) intention to possess the land. If she can prove a minimum of 12 years' adverse possession, Steve's title will be extinguished and Tanya becomes the new owner of the land: s. 15 Limitation Act 1980.

In registered land, to succeed in her adverse possession claim, Tanya must demonstrate (1) factual possession of the land; (2) intention to own the land. Tanya must then make use of the Sch. 6 procedure of the LRA 2002 to make an application to be registered as the owner of the land. This will include demonstrating a minimum of ten years' adverse possession.

In registered land, the LRA 2002 has changed the law such that it is no longer possible for an adverse possessor to be registered as the new proprietor of another's land.

In registered land, it is only possible to acquire title to the land of another by way of adverse possession if there is evidence that the original owner knew of the adverse possession and consented to it.

. Ursula is registered as the proprietor of a parcel of land. She is informed by Land Registry that an application has been made, under Sch. 6 of the LRA 2002, by Veeta (an adverse possessor of Ursula's land), to be registered as the new proprietor. What can Ursula do in response to Veeta's application? Which one of the following most accurately summarizes Ursula's options under Sch. 6?

If Veeta can demonstrate factual possession, intention to possess the land and a minimum of ten years' adverse possession of the land, Ursula can do nothing and after 65 days Veeta will be registered as the new proprietor.

Ursula has 65 days within which to either (1) consent to the application or (2) object on the grounds that Veeta is ineligible to make the application.

Ursula has 65 days within which to either (1) consent to the application; (2) object on the grounds that Veeta is ineligible to make the application; (3) serve a counter-notice requiring the application be dealt with under Sch. 6, para. 5; (4) object on the grounds of Veeta's ineligibility and serve a counter-notice requiring the application be dealt with under Sch. 6, para. 5.

Ursula has 65 days within which to either (1) consent to the application; (2) object on the grounds that Veeta is ineligible to make the application; (3) serve a counter-notice requiring the application be dealt with under Sch. 6, para. 5; (4) object on the grounds of Veeta's ineligibility and serve a counter-notice requiring the application be dealt with under Sch. 6, para. 5; or (5) do nothing.

. William is the freehold owner of a plot of unregistered land. William became aware that Xanthi had been occupying the land as an adverse possessor including fencing off the land and intending to build an eco-house on the land. William was intrigued by the project and so wrote to Xanthi telling her he treated her as a licensee of the plot and asking her to enter a licence agreement with him. Xanthi did not write back. William, annoyed at this, wrote again to Xanthi, this time saying that any licence that had existed was terminated and that she should leave the land. Xanthi claims title to the land by way of 12 years' adverse possession. Which one of the following most accurately reflects Xanthi's legal position?

William will seek to argue that there is no adverse possession as Xanthi was a licensee. This argument will likely fail, however, as William sought to create an express licence and Xanthi did not agree to this.

William will seek to argue that there is no adverse possession as Xanthi was a licensee. This argument will likely fail, however, as no licence can arise where there is unilateral communication from one party.

William will seek to argue that there is no adverse possession as Xanthi was a licensee. This argument may succeed as the court has allowed the possibility of a licence arising where there is unilateral communication by the landowner: BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987).

William will seek to argue that there is no adverse possession as Xanthi was a licensee. This argument may succeed under the doctrine of implied licence: Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell Mex & BP Ltd.

Quiz Content