JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham

On an application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal may refuse permission if it considers the case unfit for appeal. Novelty, the absence of prior House of Lords authority on adverse possession, an unusually large area of land, and issues concerning a grazing licence or proof of intention to possess do not themselves require permission. The court treated the governing law as settled by Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623 and held that it had applied that law to the special facts. Permission was refused, leaving any further application to the House of Lords.

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another appealed from a decision of the Chancery Division before Mr Justice Neuberger in litigation concerning adverse possession. After the Court of Appeal had decided the appeal, the respondents sought permission to appeal to the House of Lords. They relied on the absence of House of Lords authority on adverse possession, the unusually large area of land, a grazing licence, and the evidential issue of proving intention to possess. The issue was whether the case was fit for permission from the Court of Appeal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Mummery delivered the judgment. Lord Justice Keene and Sir Martin Nourse agreed.

1. The respondents sought permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The matters relied upon included the fact that the House of Lords had not previously considered adverse possession, the unusually large area of land involved, the special feature of the grazing licence, and the question of proving the mental element of intention to possess.
2. The Court of Appeal concluded that this was not a fit case for permission to be granted by that court. It had applied the law settled in its previous decision of Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623 to the special facts of the case. The matters relied upon did not alter that assessment.
3. Any further application for permission was a matter for the House of Lords. The formal order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2001] EWCA Civ 117, the court refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. Chancery Division — The appeal originated from a decision of Mr Justice Neuberger. No citation or outcome for that decision is stated in the judgment.