Land Law is really rather a marmite subject. Students tend to love it or loathe it but one of the areas of the subject with more general appeal is probably adverse possession.
There is something rather fascinating about the idea that if you can get into possession of some land and use it as you please for long enough, (without the true owner asserting any rights over it) then eventually it’s yours! Perhaps we all hope we’re going to be lucky enough to get some land this way?
There was a fascinating case on the subject heard in 2018 and reported in 2019 which has now led the Land Registry to update its practice guides on adverse possession. It’s definitely worth a mention.
In Rashid v Nasrullah Mohammed Rashid (MR2) owned some land and was the registered proprietor. His friend and namesake (MR1) thought he had an interest in the land too. In April 1989 MR2 went away to Pakistan and in his absence MR1 executed a fraudulent transfer of the land into his own name and then further transferred it to his son for no consideration. MR1 told MR2 about this but MR2 took no action for over 14 years until September 2013 when he applied for rectification of the register.
The court of appeal held that the doctrine of illegality did not remove the limitation period. It noted that adverse possession law is all about what is actually happening on the ground. In this case the adverse possession claim had been made out. If you’ve got our Land LLB guide you could add this update to page 115, the test in Pye v Graham was specifically upheld. Did the squatter effectively dispossess the paper owner by going into ordinary possession of the land without the consent of the paper owner?
The answer in Rashid v Nasrullah was a resounding yes!