AP Flashcards

13832688050	LIMITATION ACT 1980	time bar on state claism - Still used for AP in unregistered land - NOT APPLICABLE to registered land - Operates negatively- doesn't 'grant' possessor title - prevents earlier possessor enforcing her right	0
13832696426	Re Nisbet and potts contract	n enter contract to sell land to p builder vs n= aper - not bothered to looka t land charges register to see if find RC on land - had bare title when p foundout reused to buy vs signed enforceabel contract >> n sued held is N subject to to restrictive covenant himself? if he were then p justified in not buying it - Didn't wanna buy property that couldn't be built oon ; if received title N could've have transferred land to him free of restrictive covenant per nemo dat [n couldn't have transferred land to him free of restrictive covenant] - Cant say he is in position of purchaser as land for value wo notice - AP always take subject for notice for everything : Romer LJ: "And certainly that squatter, who, if he did not know of the restrictive covenants validly entered into by the true owner, at best could only say that he did NOT KNOW of them because he MADE NO INQUIRY as to the title before he squatted, cannot say that he is in the position of a purchaser, as it were, of the land for value without notice."	1
13836470459	old lra s 75	ap of unregsitered land - 12 year ap >> owner out and cant recover it /12 year reg before 10/03 - ld law aka litiation act + s75 >> after 10/03 - limitation act doesnt come inot that	2
13836477986	animus posidendi	intnetion to possess	3
13836482216	requirements	1.degree of EXCLUSIVE physilac possesson 2. and INTENTION to possess	4
13836482217	Buckinghamshire CC v moran	councilset aside land w unusued w intetion of dvelopment it in the futre m treated as gardne- gardened it council ap claim failed- permission must be MANIFEST -c ant unilaterally writ teo m & say reocngise possession intnetion of paper woner irelevnat- doesnt amtter if need land know so possessionfrom time to time of being wasnt inconsittent w paper owners future use -- The test is to look for a present intention to possess and thus future intentions are irrelevant. Here the future intentions of the owner to expel the squatter were equally irrelevant. Erected gate secured by lock and chain (displayed intention).	5
13836498086	JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham	intnetion fo apepr owner irrelevnat suggestion suficiency of possession depedn on intetionof squatter of squater > true owner = hereital and wrong lord bw only an intention to occupy it until needed by the paper owner possible if improbable interference some case --- intentionto possess not necessarily to own farmland had lease land before lapsed ekpt asking for lease but p never renwed leas e p does nothing vs g make productive use of land intention to posses not for the whole period but time being -- willingness to pay does NOT negate intnetion	6
13836591047	Powell v mcfarlane	m land t farm xmas trees- wen tbaorad for 12 year s- neighbour grazed cows on land & voer years used it for cly pigeon shooting- put sing up on fence adverstsing tree felling business when m wife visited land found nothing amiss p sought declaration that had title possesison NOT establsih possession =matter of degree - fact specific alleged possessor has been dealing with the land in question as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it and that no-one else has done so."	7
13836646280	Greenmanor ltd v pilford	p owned land abutting g s fened land but left it unlocked anyone coudlve walked it SUFFICEITN > ultimate control needed construction of wall adn gate = sufficinet act must be OPEN AND MANFEST - comuicate tot her est of teh world you own land sign to keep others out - suffcietn in indicating this	8
13836655717	pubrick v London borough of hackney	possession must not be SECRETIVE - open squatter occupied burnt out shell fo council house 12 year si slong time to neglect property completely not doing anything dishonest or underhand limitation act contain protection for paper title owner where fraud/concelalment - yb person laiming ap litmation act 1980 - s2 2	9
13836696673	Lambeth LBC v blackburn	squatter gained entry by breaking lock adn instlaling own expected coucnilt oe vict him & agreed to pay rent if council would let hims tay didnt negate posessojn AT THE RELEVANT TIME - stlll counted --- sqatters belief that had owners permission FATAL TO CLAIM	10
13836754533	crim law act s7 1977	if someone persists in occupation after beign required to qiut by owner, commit crim offnece - owner ENTITLED to REASONABLE force ap on residential property is now crim offence	11
13836771885	Best v Chief Land Registrar	b restored derelict property made applciation under sch 6 lra 2002-o beregistsered vs paper owner not respodn / int eim ca best won- law introduced crim law as deterrent & Facilitate removal of trepsasser - but NOT a bar to ap sound reasonign >> - parl intention wasntto defeat law for cents on acquisiotn of rights by LONG UNINTERRUPTED use	12
13836795501	limitation act 1980 s15	unregisterered land noaction bought by any person recover land after expiraiton of 12 years on whic rights of action accure on him after 12 years paper owners right extinguished -- - As above but registered title then was held in bare trust for possessor until latter was registered proprietor - s75 LRA 1925	13
13836798644	Perry v clisshold	ureg land aussie case 'right is for ever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title." assume character of the owner- good tilte- if owner doenst assert tiel in time= extinguished right	14
13836876243	s96 lra 2002	excludes operation fo la 1980 s15 for rgistered title of land after 10/03 until squatter registered, is a trespasser no trust arise - title not extinguished	15
13836880342	sch 6 para 11 1	- "A person is in adverse possession of an estate in land...if, but for s 96, a period of limitation under s 15 LA 1980 would run in his favour..." presumtpion in favour fo regsitered owner may apply to be registered prop ater period of 10 years ending onf date of applciation	16
13836902894	asher v whitlock	[successive periods can aply to ap] if leave by WILL possessory title to C	17
13836912718	r 189 lra 2003	notified period have 65 DAYS to object to application if no respose-r egistered	18
13836914601	sch 6 para 4	if no response wihtin 65 days to challenge to psosession to object, then applicant [aper] is REGISTERED	19
13836918680	Baxter v mannion	former owner can challenge reigster AFTER aper registered m ocucpied field - claiemd for 10 years - vs b hadnt objected in time- good reason tied up - bereveament etc court ACCEPTED -said been MISTAKE inr egister not complete 10 years	20
13836931550	sch 6 para 5	if notified person doesnt respond sufficient to prevent registration UNELSS pplicant falls under exception in this part 2a- estoppel 2b -SOME OTHER REASON should be registered 4- settle BOUNDARY DISPUTE	21