J Alston & Sons Ltd v Bocm Pauls Ltd

Adverse possession requires factual possession and an intention to possess the land for the occupier’s own benefit. It does not require an intention to own the land, an intention to confront or dispossess the paper owner, or a belief that possession is unlawful. An intention to remain indefinitely if possible, while accepting that the owner may require the land back, can satisfy the requirement.

After an express licence ends, continued occupation is adverse unless the owner actually grants a further permission. Mere acquiescence, non-objection, or conduct consistent with permission is insufficient. Any implied permission must be established as a fact by probative evidence.

Alstons claimed that it had acquired title by adverse possession to approximately six acres of agricultural land registered in the name of Pauls. Alstons had farmed the land under a rent-free licence from Pauls’ predecessor. That licence ended when the land was transferred to Pauls on 25 March 1977.

Alstons continued cultivating the land without communication from Pauls. It claimed that factual possession and the necessary intention to possess continued for twelve years, extinguishing Pauls’ right to recover the land under the Limitation Act 1980. Pauls argued that Alstons lacked the necessary intention and, alternatively, occupied by implied permission. The issues were factual possession, intention to possess, and implied permission.

1. Claim allowed. Pauls’ counterclaim for possession and mesne profits failed. Alstons had acquired title to the claimed land by adverse possession.
2. Alstons had factual possession throughout the relevant period. Continuous cultivation of the land as part of its farming operations amounted to exclusive physical custody and control. Occasional walking, access by mill staff, and limited discharge of surface water did not amount to possession by Pauls or interrupt Alstons’ possession.
3. The necessary intention to possess was established. The relevant intention was to possess the land for Alstons’ own benefit for as long as possible and, if possible, indefinitely. It was not necessary to intend to own the land or to intend to infringe the owner’s rights. Acceptance that possession would have to be given up if Pauls demanded the land did not prevent the intention from being sufficient.
4. The approach in Wretham v Ross was preferred to that in Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd v Walters. The latter wrongly introduced an intention to dispossess or confront the paper owner into the test.
5. There was no implied permission after 25 March 1977. Under paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980, permission had to be actual and established as a matter of fact. The evidence showed acquiescence or non-objection only. The continued cultivation, the tanks, water discharge, and other conduct were not probative of a new permission.
6. The statutory twelve-year period therefore expired on 25 March 1989. The court declined to create an implied licence merely to avoid the consequence of adverse possession.