Skip to main content
Log in

Adverse Possession and Article 1 of the European Convention

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the post-human rights era the question has arisen on several occasions as to whether the automatic and arbitrary termination of the registered owner’s title through the common law and statutory principles governing adverse possession of land is contrary to the Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The matter fell to be decided in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom ([2005] 3 EGLR 1) where the European Court of Human Rights held that the automatic termination of a registered owners title after 12 years possession was indeed a violation of Article 1, Protocol 1. More recently, the decision of the European Court has been overturned by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber has held that a squatters’ right to another persons land are not disproportionate (J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom, The Times, October 1st 2007). This short article examines the decision of the Grand Chamber.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Panesar (2003).

  2. [2005] 3 EHRR 1.

  3. J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom. The Times, October 1st 2007.

  4. Pye (Oxford) Ltd (JA) v Graham [2000] Ch 676.

  5. Pye (Oxford) Ltd (JA) v Graham [2001] Ch 804.

  6. Pye (Oxford) Ltd (JA) v Graham [2003] AC 419.

  7. [1990] Ch 623.

  8. Ibid. at p. 643.

  9. (1879) 5 Ex D 264.

  10. Ibid. at p. 27.

  11. [1990] Ch 623.

  12. [2002] 3 WLR 221 at p. 231.

  13. Ibid.

  14. [2002] 3 WLR 221 at p. 234.

  15. Ibid. at p. 237.

  16. (1879) 5 EX D 264.

  17. [1990] Ch 623.

  18. Rook (2001, p. 205).

  19. [2000] Ch 676, [2001] Ch 804 (Court of Appeal).

  20. [2000] Ch 676 at p. 710.

  21. [2001] Ch 804 at p. 822.

  22. See Honoré (1961, p. 129) where the author identifies main incidents of ownership.

  23. Rook (2001, p. 207).

  24. [2006] Ch 79.

  25. [2005] 3 EGLR 1.

  26. [2005] 3 EGLR 1 at para. 67.

  27. J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom (Application No. 44302/02). The Times 1st October 2007.

  28. J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v United Kingdom (Application No. 44302/02) at para. 43.

  29. Ibid. at para. 60.

  30. Ibid. at para. 76.

  31. Ibid. at para. 75.

  32. Ibid. at para. 79.

  33. This is not something which is new; it originates from the concept of seisin-possession. This concept is at the roots of real property law and emphasizes that proprietary rights in land are based on physical possession rather than on abstract title. The concept of seisin possession is examined in chapter 6. For a more detailed account of the concept of seisin see, A.W.B. Simpson, An Introduction to the History of English Land Law (1961).

  34. Gray (1987, p. 64) and Gray and Gray (2009).

  35. See Dockray (1985, p. 272).

  36. Ibid. at para. 46.

References

  • Dockray, M. 1985. Why do we need adverse possession. Conveyancer 272.

  • Gray, K. 1987. Elements of land law, 2nd edition. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K., and S. Gray. 2009. Elements of land law, Chapter 9. Oxford.

  • Honoré, A.M. 1961. Ownership. In Oxford essays in jurisprudence, ed. A.G. Guest. Clarendon Press.

  • Panesar, S. 2003. The importance of possession in the common law tradition. Hong Kong Law Journal 33 (3): 569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rook, D. 2001. Property law and human rights. London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sukhninder Panesar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panesar, S., Wood, J. Adverse Possession and Article 1 of the European Convention. Liverpool Law Rev 30, 77–88 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9050-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-009-9050-4

Keywords

Navigation