The scope of adverse possession, and the ability to acquire land by stealth, has been severely curtailed by the Land Registration Act 2002, resulting in a law that can be morally justified.

Discuss.

This requires you to essentially analyse how the law of adverse possession, which enables a person to acquire title to property, has changed following the enactment of the LRA 2002. Key focus will be upon the procedure for acquiring adverse possession, rather than an explanation of what adverse possession actually is, as the latter has changed little following the LRA 2002.

It is suggested that you should scrutinize the procedure for establishing adverse possession pre LRA 2002. Of particular focus should be the consequences of establishing 12 years' adverse possession. Is the automatic extinguishment of the paper owners title fair and can it be justified, or does it simply allow people to steal property from others under their noses? Should the law allow for this to happen? Some critical evaluation of the law is essential and where possible enhance with academic debate. Arguments could also be strengthened by looking at comments made on the issue of whether the law was adequately balanced between the paper owner and the adverse possessor during the various stages in the case of Pye (JA) (Oxford) Ltd v Graham (2003).

Focus should then turn to the way in which the LRA 2002 has changed the procedure to establish adverse possession. Emphasise the shift of placing the burden on the adverse possessor to actually take positive steps to acquire title to the land. Does this produce a law that can be morally justified? Have the concerns raised in the case of Pye on the addressing the balance between the adverse possessor and the paper owner been addressed? Does the new law sit more comfortably with the European Convention of Human Rights (1950)?