An application to the Land Registry to be registered as proprietor of land through adverse possession requires possession for the 10 years immediately preceding the application (Schedule 6, Land Registration Act 2002).
Mr Best had been in adverse possession of residential property for more than 10 years. However, before he applied to register his title, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into force. Section 144 criminalises trespass when it consists of living in a residential building. Mr Best’s occupation of the building, therefore, became criminal.
His application to the Land Registry under Schedule 6 was cancelled, on the grounds that adverse possession that involved a criminal offence could not be relied on as a basis of an application. Mr Best challenged that decision in judicial review proceedings.
Best v Chief Land Registrar  EWHC 1370 (Admin) is an interesting discussion of the importance, and the limits, of the principle that “no man can found a cause of action on his own criminal conduct”. The principle must be balanced against competing public policy interests, the advancement of which is imputed to Parliament’s intention whenever it legislates; and the public policy interests behind the law of adverse possession are clear and significant.
Ouseley J concluded that:
“… the purpose of s.144 was to help those who needed rather more immediate and committed police action on the side of the property owner than an action for civil trespass alone afforded, to deal with perhaps numbers of squatters, who refused to depart, and exploited the civil law’s delays to fortify the house against the owner, to use his possessions as their own, at a cost to him which was unlikely to be recovered. It was not to throw a spanner into the delicate workings of the 2002 Act, with random effects on the operation of adverse possession, all without a backward glance.
Parliament should be taken to have thought that the public policy advantages of adverse possession at common law meant that the mere fact that the adverse possession was based on criminal trespass did not and should not preclude a successful claim to adverse possession.”
Accordingly, the Chief Registrar’s decision was founded on an error of law, and would be quashed.
David Willink / 1st Jul 2014
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.