Rehman v Benfield

For limitation purposes, a written and signed document can acknowledge a proprietor’s title even if it purports to grant an invalid lease. Under sections 29 and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980, the acknowledgement must be clear, signed by the person in possession, and made to the proprietor or the proprietor’s agent. Communication through an intermediary can suffice where the document is held with the possessor’s authority and is received by the proprietor’s actual solicitors. A valid acknowledgement postpones accrual of the right of action, preventing completion of the limitation period. An appellate court may permit a generally pleaded point to be developed where the opposing party has notice and suffers no irremediable prejudice.

The appellant was the registered proprietor of a dwelling house occupied by the respondent from 1991. The respondent claimed adverse possession. The county court held that a purported lease was false and ineffective, found no acknowledgement of title, and declared the respondent owner in fee simple, ordering registration under paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 12 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the respondent’s signed counterpart lease acknowledged the appellant’s title under sections 29 and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980, notwithstanding the invalidity of the lease and the route by which the document reached the appellant’s solicitors. The court also considered whether the acknowledgement point could properly be advanced on appeal.

1. Appeal allowed. The order below was set aside. The appellant was declared owner in fee simple in possession and entitled to registration. The respondent was ordered to deliver possession within two months. There was no order as to the costs below, while the appellant was to pay the costs of the appeal.
2. The requirements of sections 29 and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980 were satisfied. The counterpart clearly acknowledged the appellant’s registered title, was in writing, and was signed by the person in possession. It was made to the appellant through his agent. The respondent’s solicitors sent it, with her authority, to Anna Arthur & Co. Although that firm was not in fact the appellant’s agent, it later supplied the document to Daybells, who were instructed by and acted as the appellant’s agents. The counterpart was actually received by Daybells.
3. The invalidity of the purported lease did not prevent the statements in the signed counterpart from operating as an acknowledgement of title. The lease’s failure to create enforceable rights was distinct from the statutory effect of the acknowledgement.
4. Under section 29, the right of action was treated as accruing on and not before the date of acknowledgement. Whether that date was 19 December 1991 or the date of communication in April 1992, the twelve-year period had not expired before 13 October 2003. Section 96(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 therefore prevented completion of the adverse possession claim.
5. The acknowledgement argument was sufficiently pleaded, according to Mummery LJ. Jacob LJ and Neuberger LJ considered that, even if amendment were required, it should be allowed because the respondent had adequate notice and suffered no relevant prejudice. The precise date of acknowledgement was left undecided. Mummery LJ expressed only a provisional preference for the date of signing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 26 October 2006, the appeal was allowed and the county court order was set aside. The appellant was declared owner and entitled to registration, and possession was ordered within two months.
• Kingston-upon-Thames County Court: On 8 March 2006, HHJ Viljoen declared the respondent owner in fee simple in possession and ordered registration under paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 12 to the Land Registration Act 2002. That decision was reversed.