Port of London Authority v Ashmore

Adverse possession of the bed of a tidal river is possible where an unregistered title is claimed. Continuous physical contact with the land is unnecessary. The required degree of factual possession depends on the nature of the land and how land of that nature is ordinarily used. A vessel moored in one place may provide sufficient possession even though it rises and falls with the tide and its precise footprint varies. The claimant must also show an intention to possess, ordinarily inferred from the occupier’s acts and assessed with the paper owner’s knowledge of the circumstances. The area acquired may include the land reached by the vessel’s contact, including through its anchor, and the relevant space above it.

The Port of London Authority claimed possession and related relief concerning the bed and foreshore of the tidal River Thames occupied by the defendant’s vessel, Atrato. The defendant had moored the vessel beside the riverbank for more than 12 years and claimed title by adverse possession. The parties agreed a preliminary issue asking whether the owner of a vessel moored in tidal water could acquire title to the river bed or foreshore beneath the vessel where the title was unregistered and the vessel rested on the bed at low tide.

1. Preliminary issue. The answer was yes. In principle, the owner of a vessel moored in a particular place on a tidal river may acquire title by adverse possession to the relevant part of the unregistered river bed where the vessel rests at low tide.
2. Factual possession. Applying J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419, possession requires factual possession and an intention to possess. Factual possession depends on the nature of the land and the manner in which land of that nature is commonly used. Continuous physical contact is unnecessary. The vessel’s rising and falling with the tide, and limited lateral movement caused by wind and tide, did not prevent possession of the relevant river bed.
3. The possession was substantially more than sporadic. The defendant had exercised unchallenged control of the relevant area for 26 years. The court rejected the suggestion that possession required a structure built into the river bed. The reasoning in Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries Ltd v Anson [1911] 1 KB 171, although obiter in that case, supported the same conclusion.
4. Intention to possess. The necessary intention is an intention to possess in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, not an intention to own. It may generally be inferred from the acts themselves. Although mooring a vessel may initially be equivocal, the surrounding circumstances showed that the defendant was not navigating, exercising riparian rights, acting under a licence or lease, or using an easement.
5. The acquired area comprised the total area between the extreme points where the vessel had contacted the river bed, including contact through the anchor, together with the space above it through which the water flowed and the air column to a reasonable height. The court left open wider questions concerning vessels moored away from the bank, non-tidal waters, the public right of navigation and riparian rights.