Inglewood Investments Company Limited v Baker

Adverse possession requires both factual possession and an intention to possess. The intention has subjective and objective elements. It must be manifested so that the paper owner would recognise, on visiting, that possession is claimed against the world, including the owner. Physical acts are assessed in context, having regard to the nature and ordinary use of the land. A fence may be equivocal where its apparent purpose is merely to contain livestock. Intermittent activities, such as shooting, children's play and rubbish clearance, do not establish continuous possession for the limitation period. An appellate court should respect the trial judge's advantage in evaluating witnesses and conducting a site visit.

Inglewood, the paper owner of an unregistered triangular parcel, sued Baker in trespass after Portakabins used for car-boot sales appeared on land bordering his field. Baker claimed title by adverse possession under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act 1980, relying mainly on a fence erected in 1984 and intermittent use of the land. Mr Recorder Webb rejected the defence, finding no exclusive possession for the continuous 12-year period and no requisite animus possidendi. Baker appealed from Stoke-on-Trent County Court. The central issues were whether the fence and associated activities established factual possession and a sufficiently clear intention to exclude the paper owner.

Lord Justice Aldous delivered the judgment of the court, and Lord Justice Dyson agreed. The appeal was dismissed, with costs assessed summarily at £11,000.

1. Under section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act 1980, a claim to adverse possession for the requisite 12-year period requires actual possession and an intention to possess.
2. Factual possession requires an appropriate degree of exclusive physical control. The question depends on the nature of the land and the manner in which land of that nature is ordinarily used. The alleged possessor must have dealt with the land as an occupying owner might have been expected to deal with it, without another person doing so.
3. The intention to possess has subjective and objective elements. The claimant must intend, in his own name and on his own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the paper owner so far as reasonably practicable. That intention must also be manifested so that it would be apparent to the owner on a visit, although actual knowledge by the owner is unnecessary.
4. The trial judge was entitled to find that the mesh fence was equivocal. Its purpose was to keep sheep in, rather than to exclude the paper owner. The evidence of the witnesses, the nature of the fence and the existing barbed-wire boundary supported the conclusion that Baker lacked the requisite intention.
5. Intermittent rubbish clearance, shooting, children's play and motorbike riding did not establish continuous adverse possession. The fence and those activities, taken together, did not show the required degree of control for the full limitation period.

The Court of Appeal gave weight to the trial judge's advantage in seeing the witnesses and visiting the land. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed Baker's appeal and ordered summary costs of £11,000.
• Stoke-on-Trent County Court, before Mr Recorder Webb, rejected Baker's adverse-possession defence and found that the required possession and intention had not been established.