Geronimo Ltd & Anor v Brentford Yacht and Boat Company Ltd

A claim to title by adverse possession requires both factual possession and an intention to possess. Factual possession requires an appropriate degree of exclusive physical control, assessed in light of the nature and use of the land. The claimant must also show clearly and affirmatively that it intended to exclude the owner. Temporary use, access, mooring, storage, or use shared with others will not necessarily establish possession. In construing an unregistered conveyance identified solely by a plan, the plan may determine the extent of the land conveyed. Retention of the root conveyance may support an inference that the vendor retained part of the land to which it related.

British Waterways Board sought declarations concerning title to unregistered land adjoining the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. The land was divided into the non-bridge land and the bridge land. The defendant claimed that the 1952 conveyance had transferred the whole of the relevant tip to the local authority and that it, or predecessor businesses, had acquired the whole land by adverse possession.

The court had to determine the paper title to the non-bridge land and whether the defendant had acquired title to either section by adverse possession. The claim concerning other adjoining land had previously been compromised.

1. Paper title. The 1952 conveyance transferred land identified solely by the plan. The plan clearly excluded the non-bridge land. The intended fence line and the retention by the Commission of the 1897 conveyance supported the inference that the Commission had retained part of the land to which that conveyance related. Legal title to the non-bridge land was therefore vested in BWB.
2. Adverse possession. Under the Limitation Act 1980, the relevant law had not materially changed since 1947. Possession required factual possession and an intention to possess, applying the principles stated in J A Pye (Oxford) v Graham [2003] 1 A.C. 419 and Powell v Macfarlane (1977) 38 P. & C. R. 452.
3. The defendant failed to establish the necessary possession in any period. The evidence did not show sufficient exclusive control by Ridgeways, BYB1, BMS, Ridgeways or BYB2. The land was used by several other persons, including boat owners and tenants. Mooring boats, crossing the land, storing items, carrying out limited work, installing a pontoon, or erecting an unlocked or nominal barrier did not establish adverse possession.
4. The court considered the bridge land despite the absence of any established paper title owner as a party. The factual basis of the claim was substantially the same for both sections, the Land Registry application had been adjourned pending the proceedings, and any determination would bind only BWB and BYB2.
5. Declarations were made that legal title to the non-bridge land was vested in BWB and that BYB2 had not acquired title to the Blue Land or any part of it by adverse possession.