London Borough of Lambeth v Archangel

For the purposes of determining whether a squatter has acknowledged another person’s better title, the court may consider the circumstances surrounding a written document. Extrinsic evidence may identify the property referred to and clarify the document’s meaning. An acknowledgement is not deprived of personal effect merely because it is written on an organisation’s notepaper or signed by the occupier in an organisational capacity. It may be made to an employee acting as the title-holder’s agent. The question is whether, properly construed in its context, the document clearly recognises the superior title.

The Council sought possession of a six-bedroom property occupied by Michael Archangel and relied on his written acknowledgement of the Council’s better title. The County Court rejected his defence of adverse possession, holding that a February 1993 letter acknowledged the Council’s title within the relevant limitation period.

Mr Archangel appealed. The Council cross-appealed findings favourable to him on continuity of possession, intention to possess and an implied licence. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was the proper construction and effect of the letter referring to refurbishment of “Lambeth’s property”.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court had correctly decided the case on acknowledgement, making it unnecessary to determine the Council’s challenges concerning continuity of possession, intention to possess or implied licence.
2. The surrounding circumstances could be considered when construing the letter. Extrinsic evidence was admissible to identify the property referred to and to resolve the document’s meaning.
3. “Lambeth’s property” plainly referred to property owned or held by the Council. The evidence showed that the letter related to the disputed property, notwithstanding that Rehab II was also considering another Lambeth property.
4. The letter was a clear personal acknowledgement by Mr Archangel of the Council’s better title. His use of Rehab II notepaper and his signature as its chief executive did not remove the personal effect of the acknowledgement.
5. The acknowledgement was made to Mr Clovis Reid in his official capacity. It was therefore made to an employee acting as an agent of the Council.
6. The Council was awarded three quarters of its costs, payable by the Legal Aid Commission. The appellant’s costs were to be assessed under the Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed. The court agreed with the County Court’s conclusion that the February 1993 letter acknowledged the Council’s better title.
• Central London County Court: possession order made on 11 May 2000; the adverse-possession defence was rejected on the basis of the written acknowledgement.