Gott v Lawrence & Ors

An enclosure award may confer rights of way on adjoining owners while imposing repair obligations on only some users. Unless displaced by cogent evidence, the ad medium filum presumption applies so that ownership of an allotted road extends to its centre from land on each side.

Adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 requires factual possession, an intention to possess, the required statutory period and a continuous, reasonable belief in ownership. Equitable relief for trespass is discretionary. Damages may be awarded instead of an injunction where restoration would be disproportionate, but legal ownership and access rights cannot thereby be expropriated.

The claimant, personal representative of Walter James Gott, owned land west of a disputed strip containing an old occupation road. The defendants owned adjoining land to the east. The dispute concerned the effect of an 1815 enclosure award, documentary title, rights of way, adverse possession, acquiescence, equitable relief and damages arising from agricultural development works, a locked gate, spoil deposited on the strip and damage to a boundary wall.

The court determined the parties’ respective ownership and user rights, rejected the claimant’s adverse possession case, considered whether the defendants were barred by acquiescence, and assessed the appropriate injunctive and monetary remedies.

1. The claimant and defendants owned the disputed strip in equal longitudinal halves. The enclosure award granted rights of user to the owners of allotments 22, 30, 48 and 52. The reference to adjoining owners included the owner of allotment 30. The use of the preposition introducing the repair obligations distinguished those obligations from the user rights.

2. Applying the principle in Haigh v West [1893] 2 QB 19, the soil of the road passed prima facie to the owners of the adjoining allotments to the centre line. The presumption was rebuttable, but cogent evidence of a contrary intention was required. No such evidence existed.

3. The adverse possession claim failed. The claimant had not established the necessary factual possession and intention to possess for ten years. The evidence did not establish the alleged early gate, removal of the western wall or regular grazing of racehorses. The statutory condition requiring a continuous and reasonable belief that the land belonged to the claimant was also unsatisfied under paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

4. The defendants were not barred by acquiescence. Applying Gafford v Graham (1999) 77 P&CR 73, the relevant question was whether relief would be unconscionable. The defendants lacked full knowledge of their rights until shortly before proceedings, although their delay remained relevant to remedy.

5. The defendants were entitled to use the strip and could not be deprived of their estate or access rights. However, mandatory and prohibitory relief was limited because restoration would be disproportionate and damages could compensate much of the loss. The claimant was required to unlock the gate or provide keys, subject to the final order.

6. The defendants were awarded £20,000 equitable compensation under section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, together with £19,750 common-law damages for wall damage, replacement of removed wall sections and removed stone. The claimant’s claim and adverse possession case were dismissed.