Topic+3.1+Adverse+Possession

.ppt
School
Deakin University **We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
LAW MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Aug 2, 2023
Pages
21
Uploaded by UltraLightning101162 on coursehero.com
Topic 3.1 Adverse possession Meaning Requirements Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Principle of limitation Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B A person (owner of an estate) that is unlawfully dispossessed of land has a right to bring an action against the wrongdoer to recover possession of land Common law: right of action subsisted forever Most systems embrace the principle of "limitation", the principle of fixing a finite time in which an action may be instituted Statute of Limitations 1623: right of a possessor would be protected after certain period of time from action to recover possession, notwithstanding how he/she come to possess it Limitation of actions legislation in England (Limitations Act of 1936) and Australia (Ex, Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic)) Limitations of actions legislation will preclude a paper title owner from claiming possession from an adverse possessor who has met the requirements of adverse possession Upon expiration of period of time owner's title is extinguished
Example: JA Pye (Oxford) v Graham (HL) Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B The Grahams took possession of valuable grazing land under a grazing licence with came to and end in 1983 They unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a new licence They were requested to vacate the land Continued on the land running cattle and cutting hay for the relevant statutory period but did not pay rent Fertilised the land with dung, over wintered cattle and grew yearlings in a shed which was contrary to old licence Owner intended to apply for governmental approval to develop land and thought its application might stand a better chance of success if not used for grazing land Issue: did the possession of the Grahams amounted to adverse possession? Held: Grahams used the land as their own for the relevant period between 1984 and 1997 and during that time the appellant did nothing on the land and was excluded from it Grahams, therefore, met the requirements of adverse possession
Page1of 21
Uploaded by UltraLightning101162 on coursehero.com