In these dark winter days, a case on adverse possession is always welcome (Calverley Village Day Nursery Ltd v Lynch). So we thought it helpful to consider one such case heard during 2022 and upon which we have not previously commented.
Select Products (Yorkshire) Ltd occupied a commercial property at No. 57 under licence from Mrs Lynch. The adjoining commercial property at No. 55 was owned by Calverley Village Day Nursery Ltd. Mr Lynch and Mr Spence bought No. 57 in 1991 (which then passed to Mrs Lynch) and Calverley bought No. 55 in 2018 knowing that Mrs Lynch and Select alleged they had the right to keep materials on part of the land at No.55. Having litigated on the basis of a number of issues, the trial judge had decided that the Defendants were indeed entitled to part of the land, on the basis of adverse possession.
This finding was appealed, and the appeal was heard in the High Court by Mr Justice Fancourt. The appeal was argued on the basis that in order to succeed the Defendants had to show there was 12 years' adverse possession before 13 October 2003. After that date, the law required different tests to be applied, with potentially different consequences. The Claimants argued that the Judge had not addressed this timeline with sufficient detail. They also argued that the Judge should not have decided that the evidence he found for the Defendant's use of the disputed land was sufficient to establish the necessary "intention to possess".
Fancourt J dismissed the appeal, saying that the Judge had sufficiently addressed the timeframe, and that the evidence of use was, in this case on these facts, sufficient to show an intention to use it as would an owner even though the use had not, for example, involved fencing off the disputed land.
The Judge found during the period from 1991 to 2003 there was an "irreducible minimum" of possession of the equivalent of two parking spaces on the disputed land as a skip had been placed on the disputed land from shortly after its acquisition and remained there since, Mr Lynch stored materials on the disputed land and he and Mr Spence used the land as an informal dumping ground when the skip was full. The use of the land effectively precluded any other use by any other party, and accordingly were the acts of a party asserting its ownership.
