The concept of land possession has always been one of the central inquiries in UK law, as there are many controversies and interpretations of the term possession. Since the introduction of the Land Registration Act, individuals who explicitly demonstrate the use of land for ten years are qualified to claim their right to possess the said land (Land Registration Act 2002). For nearly twenty years, this law has been applicable across the UK, demonstrating that the formal ownership of the land with no intent to use it puts the landowner at a disadvantage. Currently, possession of law remains one of the fundamental legal concepts in the UK common law.
For centuries, the UK possession law relied on the premise of adverse possession. This notion stands for the process of one individual trespassing another person’s property with an intent to use the land. The legal process aims to ensure that the land claimed by an occupier is, in fact, being used. In case another person, known as the adverse possessor, has a clear intention to use the land and occupies it for more than ten years, there is a legal precedent for providing the occupier with legal possession rights. Such an inquiry is based on the provisions of the Limitation Act, which claims that breaches of a deed such as property passed are only actionable twelve years after the initial ratification (Limitation Act 1980). Hence, if the legal owner does not express any intent to use the land within twelve years of land possession, the active land occupier is eligible for the ownership.
One of the latest legal examples of an adverse possession case is Thorpe v Frank (Thorpe v Frank [2019] EWCA Civ 150). In this case, the plaintiff passed a motion that the defendant has no legal right to enclose a trespassing area of a semi-detached bungalow. The court held that the fact that prior to fencing the site, the defendant paved the land with a permanent surface was an explicit claim for land ownership and adverse possession. Hence, the motion was denied, and the defendant won the case and adverse possession of an adjacent territory. Such a claim was made on the basis of the Seddon v Smith case (Seddon v Smith (1877)36 LT 168). The results of the proceedings demonstrated that under UK law, the enclosure was one of the strongest pieces of evidence for adverse land possession.
Without demonstrating a solid intent of ownership, the adverse possessor cannot be eligible for ownership. Thus, in Powell v McFarlane, the judges ruled that using one’s land for farm keeping without enclosing the area, even when the utilisation exceeds twelve years, is not enough to claim adverse land possession (Powell v McFarlane (1977) 38 P & CR 452). Currently, the legislation on land possession has more limitations, providing the initial landowners with an opportunity to reclaim their rights for possession.
In conclusion, the legislation on land possession remains one of the central attributes of the UK common law, allowing the individual to trespass on the property of others in order to claim the use of the land. Initially introduced as an opportunity for UK citizens to utilise the land sustainably, adverse possession now raises ethical questions about the reliability of property law. To stabilize this issue, the Land Registration Act should include more clarifications on the matter of land enclosure.