Lambeth v Bigden & Ors

A written communication acknowledges a landowner’s title for limitation purposes when, construed in its surrounding circumstances, it recognises that the landowner has the better title. No particular form of words or request for a licence is required.

A petition asking a council not to sell occupied property may therefore constitute an acknowledgement where it implicitly recognises the council’s power and right to sell. A valid acknowledgement causes the right of action to be treated as accruing afresh. Collective adverse possession requires possession by persons in whose favour limitation can run; exclusion of the owner alone does not establish joint possession of an entire block.

The registered proprietor sought possession of flats occupied rent-free by successive squatters. Proceedings began in November 1997. The occupiers contended that more than 12 years’ adverse possession had extinguished the proprietor’s title and created a bare trust under section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925.

His Honour Judge Cooke ordered possession of most disputed flats but found adverse possession established for four flats and one entire block. The occupiers appealed, principally asserting collective adverse possession of each block. The proprietor cross-appealed against the findings in the occupiers’ favour.

The Court of Appeal first considered whether a petition and other correspondence sent during the limitation period acknowledged the proprietor’s title under sections 29–31 of the Limitation Act 1980. That issue was capable of determining every appeal without resolving the remaining disputes about adverse possession.

1. Disposition. The occupiers’ appeals were dismissed and the council’s cross-appeals were allowed unanimously. The petition presented to the council on 18 January 1989 was an effective written acknowledgement of its title. Accordingly, the council’s November 1997 possession proceedings were not statute-barred.
2. Acknowledgement of title. Mummery LJ, with whom Latham LJ agreed, applied Edginton v Clark [1964] 1 QB 367. An acknowledgement exists where the person in possession recognises that, as between that person and the paper owner, the latter has the better title. Whether a document does so depends upon its true construction in all the surrounding circumstances.
3. The petition asked the council not to sell Oval Mansions to a named housing association. A request for a licence was unnecessary. By recognising the council’s power and right to sell without disputing its title, the petition clearly acknowledged that the council had the better title. It was signed by every defendant or a predecessor and was presented to the council itself. Questions of agency therefore did not affect its validity.
4. Other correspondence. Mummery LJ reserved a final view on whether letters from the housing co-operative and its development agent were also effective acknowledgements. Simon Brown LJ, with Latham LJ agreeing, concluded that they were. The co-operative acted for the individual occupiers in its discussions with the council, irrespective of its incorporation. A letter requesting placement of the licensing question on the Housing Committee’s agenda was also delivered to a councillor as the council’s agent.
5. Collective adverse possession. Mummery LJ, with Latham LJ agreeing, additionally rejected the proposed collective possession of entire blocks. Keeping each street door locked might have dispossessed the council, but dispossession did not itself prove joint adverse possession by successive occupiers. The judge was entitled to find no consensual basis of occupation, no effective communal control of the flats, and no joint physical occupation of the common parts. Simon Brown LJ expressly reserved his position on issues other than acknowledgement.
6. Simon Brown LJ recommended determining acknowledgement as a preliminary issue where it is discrete and potentially dispositive. Doing so may avoid extensive evidence, argument and public expense.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The occupiers’ appeals were dismissed and the council’s cross-appeals were allowed. The court held that a January 1989 petition acknowledged the council’s title, so its possession claims were not statute-barred.
2. Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Cooke ordered possession of most disputed flats but dismissed the claims concerning four flats and Block 8 after finding adverse possession established. He rejected the council’s case that documents sent between 1985 and 1997 effectively acknowledged its title.