The clients instructed Samuel Okoronkwo Jr. in relation to a proposed application for adverse possession and first registration of a parcel of land believed to be unregistered, situated adjacent to their existing business premises.
The clients are directors and shareholders of two connected businesses operating from premises known as the Old Mill. In 2008, the clients acquired a taxi business and began renting Unit 5 at the premises. At that time, they identified an area of abandoned land situated at the entrance of the Old Mill which had previously been unused and was subject to fly-tipping and neglect.
The clients’ case was that, from 2008 onwards, they began occupying and maintaining the land with the intention of possessing it. The land contained two areas of unused ground and was not being maintained or occupied by any other party. The clients cleared vegetation, planted trees to create a boundary and began treating the land as part of their business premises. They planted trees as an alternative to fencing due to financial constraints.
The clients subsequently instructed contractors to clear bushes and vegetation from parts of the land and began using the area for business-related purposes. In November 2008, they rented a parking space on the land to a third party. They also installed security cameras covering the premises, operated continuously, and displayed signs stating “Private Property” and “No Trespassing”.
The clients maintained that the land was enclosed on two sides, preventing access from members of the public and ensuring that they were the only persons accessing and using the land. In 2010, one of the clients established a tyre workshop business from Unit 5 and began using the land for vehicle health checks, storage of part-worn tyres and storage of scrapped vehicles.
In 2013, the clients expanded their business operations by renting an additional unit at the premises. They carried out further clearance works to remove overgrown bushes and trees and subsequently increased their use of the land for storage purposes.
Following the sale of their taxi operating business in 2016, the clients continued operating their remaining taxi rental and vehicle workshop businesses. Due to reduced security requirements, they installed a gate at the entrance to the premises which was locked every night to prevent unauthorised access.
In December 2020, the clients carried out further works to improve the land, including clearing remaining trees and bushes, levelling the ground and installing fencing around the entire area. A separate gate was installed to complete the boundary of the land.
The clients previously applied for first registration of the land in 2020. However, they stated that, following advice from their previous solicitor, they did not provide all available evidence of possession at that stage as they were advised that further evidence would be required at a later point.
In January 2021, the clients were evicted from Unit 1 at the premises. Due to the financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, they were unable to relocate and consolidated their business operations into Unit 5. As a result, the land became increasingly important for their operations, including parking vehicles, conducting mechanical work and supporting their taxi rental business.
The clients’ position was that they had been in continuous possession and occupation of the land for approximately 13 years, during which time no third party had asserted ownership or attempted to prevent their use of the land. They maintained that their possession had been open, continuous and exclusive and that they had treated the land as their own.
The principal issue was whether the clients could establish the necessary requirements for an application for adverse possession and demonstrate sufficient factual possession and intention to possess the land.
Counsel considered whether the clients’ use of the land demonstrated exclusive possession, including the steps taken to exclude others from the land through fencing, gates, security cameras and signage. Counsel considered the evidence required to demonstrate that the clients had exercised control over the land consistent with ownership.
A further issue concerned the length and continuity of possession. Counsel considered the clients’ occupation of the land from 2008 onwards, including the various uses of the land for business purposes, storage, vehicle parking and maintenance works.
Counsel also considered the evidential requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for documentary evidence demonstrating the history of occupation and control. This included photographs, evidence of fencing and boundary works, contractor invoices, rental arrangements, security measures, business records and witness evidence.
Counsel considered the previous application for first registration and the importance of ensuring that all relevant evidence was provided in support of any renewed application. Counsel advised that the strength of the application would depend upon the quality and consistency of the evidence demonstrating possession and intention to possess.
A further issue concerned the impact of the land’s use for commercial purposes. Counsel considered whether the use of the land in connection with the clients’ businesses supported the argument that they had exercised control over the land and treated it as part of their business premises.
Counsel advised that the clients appeared to have a potential claim for adverse possession based upon their long-term occupation and use of the land. Counsel advised that the focus of the application should be on establishing that the clients had exercised exclusive control over the land and had intended to possess it as owners.
Counsel advised that the clients should compile comprehensive evidence demonstrating their possession from 2008 onwards. This should include photographs showing the condition of the land over time, evidence of clearance and maintenance works, invoices from contractors, records of fencing and gate installations, evidence of security arrangements and witness statements from individuals able to confirm the clients’ occupation and use of the land.
Counsel advised that particular emphasis should be placed on the steps taken to exclude third parties, including the installation of signs, security cameras, fencing and gates. These matters would assist in demonstrating that the clients had treated the land as private property rather than merely using it casually or temporarily.
Counsel further advised that evidence should be prepared explaining the various uses of the land throughout the period of possession, including vehicle storage, parking, mechanical works and business operations. Counsel advised that this would assist in demonstrating continuous and exclusive occupation.
Counsel advised that the previous first registration application should be reviewed carefully and that any further application should include all available evidence to avoid issues arising from insufficient supporting material.
Counsel recommended that the clients proceed with preparing a detailed chronology of possession from 2008 onwards, identifying key dates, works undertaken, changes to the land, and any occasions where access was restricted or control was exercised.
Counsel advised that, subject to the strength of the supporting evidence, the clients had a reasonable basis to pursue an application for registration of the land based upon adverse possession. The immediate next steps were to collate all documentary evidence, prepare witness evidence and progress the application with the Land Registry.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy