Best v The Chief Land Registrar & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr Best applied for title registration of a residential property based on adverse possession. However, the Chief Land Registrar canceled the application because the possession period included criminal trespass after September 1, 2012. Upon judicial review, the court held that the criminalization of trespass under s144 LASPOA does not preclude adverse possession claims, leading to the quashing of the Chief Land Registrar's decision, and requiring Mr Best's application to proceed under Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Mr Justice Ouseley:
This claim for judicial review raises the question of whether the criminalising of trespass by “living in” a residential building, pursuant to section 144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 , LASPOA, has prevented time running for applications for registration of title by adverse possession, so-called squatter’s title, to registered land. The Chief Land Registrar decided that it does. Mr Best, the Claimant, who would probably otherwise have been registered as the proprietor of residential property in Newbury Park, challenges that; he contends that s144 of the 2012 Act was never intended to have that effect on the registration of title and should not be construed so that it did.
The Facts
35 Church Road, Newbury Park is a dwelling house. Freehold title is registered at HM Land Registry; the registered proprietor is Doris May Curtis. On 27 November 2012, the Claimant applied to register title to the property on the basis that he had been in adverse possession “for the period of ten years ending on the date of the application”, as required by Schedule 6 paragraph 1 to the Land Registration Act 2002 , the LRA. Mr Best’s accompanying statutory declaration stated that in 1997 he had been working on a nearby property, the owner of which had told him that the last occupier of the then empty and vandalised property at 35 Church Road, Mrs Curtis, had died, and that he had not seen her son since 1996.
Mr Best entered the property, and did work to it, notably repairing the roof in 2000, clearing the garden for £2000, and taking other steps to make it wind and watertight. As time went on, he replaced ceilings and skirting boards, and electric and heating fitments; he plastered and painted walls. He did this intending to make it his permanent residence. He moved in at the end of January 2012. He said that he had treated the house as his own since 2001. There had been no disputes about his possession of the property. But he occupied it without anyone’s consent. Mr Best asserts that he is a trespasser in the property; and although Mr Rainey QC for Mr Best was reluctant to admit it, in reality as a trespasser, Mr Best has been living in the building in breach of the criminal law as from 1 September 2012, when s144 LASPOA came into force.
By letter dated 10 December 2012, the Chief Land Registrar, through an officer, told Mr Best that he was going to cancel the application, in effect he was going to refuse it, becau