Iam Group Plc v Chowdrey

For the third condition in paragraph 5(4) of Land Registration Act 2002 Schedule 6, the applicant’s belief that the land belonged to him must be genuine and objectively reasonable. The question is whether the particular applicant was reasonable in holding that belief in all the circumstances. It is not determined by imputing to the applicant the knowledge that a reasonably competent conveyancing solicitor would have acquired. The applicant’s need to make enquiries may nevertheless be relevant. A challenge by the paper-title owner does not automatically make a continuing belief unreasonable. Its effect depends on the whole factual context, including the duration and circumstances of the adverse possessor’s unchallenged possession.

IAM Group Plc appealed against an order of HHJ Blunsdon in the Lambeth County Court dismissing its possession claim concerning the first and second floors of 26 Rye Lane, Peckham. The judge granted Qamar Chowdrey’s counterclaim, declaring that he had a defence under section 98(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 and directing registration of his title under section 98(5).

The factual findings included Chowdrey’s exclusive possession from 1990, his purchase of the adjoining property in 1993, and his honest belief that the disputed floors formed part of what he had acquired. The appeal concerned only whether that belief remained reasonably held for the purposes of Schedule 6, paragraph 5(4)(c), particularly in light of conveyancing documents and later letters challenging his title.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent’s honest belief that the disputed property belonged to him was not challenged on appeal. The issue was whether that belief was reasonably held for the purposes of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
2. The test is directed to the reasonableness of the belief held by the particular applicant in all the circumstances. It is not a question of imputing to the applicant the knowledge of a reasonably competent solicitor. The court was not concerned with agency principles for imputing an agent’s knowledge to a principal. Whether the applicant should have made enquiries of solicitors or elsewhere may, however, be relevant.
3. On the findings, nothing in 1993 put the respondent on notice that he needed to ask whether the disputed property fell within his paper title. He had enjoyed exclusive possession from 1990, had sole access through his adjoining property, and had encountered no challenge or question.
4. The later letters challenging his title did not automatically end the reasonable belief. Following Zarb v Parry [2011] EWCA Civ 1306, the question remained whether, in all the circumstances, the continuing belief was reasonable. The respondent had possessed the property exclusively and without challenge for about 18 years. The judge was therefore entitled, and right, to conclude that the correspondence did not make the continuing belief unreasonable.
5. The county court’s order, including the declaration under section 98 and the direction for registration under section 98(5), was left undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Lambeth County Court order of HHJ Blunsdon dated 9 June 2011. The appeal was dismissed.
• Lambeth County Court: The possession claim was dismissed. Judgment was entered for the respondent on his counterclaim, with a declaration under section 98(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 and an order for registration under section 98(5).