It has recently been reported that Scotland Yard is taking legal action to remove squatters who have occupied a disused police station in London, which has been sold subject to contract, to a property developer.

It will only be a matter of time before the squatters are moved on and the true owner can regain control of his property - without fear that a claim for adverse possession of his land has been established. The squatters have been there only a limited time and will not have established any rights under the adverse possession rules.

Contrast this story with the outcome of a recent Court of Appeal decision (under Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley [2004]). An appeal was made by another property developer against a 2003 High Court decision that a Lancashire farmer (Townley), who continued to occupy and farm 13 acres of freehold land after his grazing licence expired in April 1982, was entitled to adverse possession of the land he occupied.

Case law has held that the word 'adverse' is used as a label in recognition simply of the fact that the possession of land is adverse to the interests of the paper owner or, in the case of registered land, the registered proprietor.

Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that ‘no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him.’

This basically means that in order for a claimant to show that he has a case for adverse possession of land, he must be eligible to do so, under the Limitation Act (the right of action) and show that his claim will defeat the interests of the paper owner or registered proprietor.

Both facts were proven under the Topplan case. Townley had been in continuous occupation of the land for over 12 years at the time he made his claim and the true owner - who on reasonable inspection of the land, would have been alerted to his occupation - made no attempt to remove him.

It was further held that there was no obligation on Townley to draw the true owner's attention to the fact that time was running against him, as Townley was acting honestly in his occupation of the land. As the Appeal Judge said: ‘it is to some extent implicit in the present law of adverse possession that an owner of property who makes no use of it whatever, should be expected to keep an eye on the property to ensure that adverse possession rights are not being clocked up. A period of 12 years is a long period during which to neglect a property completely.’

For more information contact Julie Lloyd on 01793 511055 or julie.lloyd@clmlaw.co.uk