Land Registration Act 2002 to Rescue the Landowners from Theft - Research Proposal Example

Research Proposal Land registration Act 2002 has been proved inadequate in order to protect landowners from land theft through adverse possession. Hypothesis The position of landowners has not been improved despite the LRA 2002 (that followed JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom) and the LRA 1925 and their provisions on adverse possession. Research Methodology The research over the particular subject will be based on the examination of the statutes and the case law related with the issue under examination. Both the statutes and the case law are going to be analytically examined and evaluated in accordance with their relevance with the subject. On the other hand, the literature review published on the specific issue will be used in order to understand the effects of the existed Statutes and the case law on the protection of landowners from a potential theft of their land. The structure of the research on this study will be the following one: The general provisions of the Statutes (LRA 1925 and LRA 2002) will be presented primarily – especially their provisions for the adverse law possession. At a next section the particular aspects of JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom) will be presented trying to identify the elements the case that can be used in order to support the position of landowners that are in danger of loosing their land through adverse possession. Finally, the literature that has been published on the particular issue will be developed trying to aligning the assumptions that are stated in the theory with the existed law suggesting changes where the relevant legal orders are not clear or where additional provisions need to be incorporated in current legal orders that regulate the adverse law possession. In other words, the research will be a qualitative one – no data to be involved – while the comparison of the existed legal provisions is considered as necessary in order to formulate a valid assumption on the issue under examination. Literature Review In order to understand the law of adverse possession in relation with the land law, we should primarily refer to the specific term as it is used within the relevant legal texts in order to represent the acquisition of land with no legal title. In this context, it is stated that ‘adverse possession is the process by which a "squatter" becomes the legal owner of land by possessing it for a certain period of time, thereby dispossessing the "paper" owner of his title’ (Mace and Jones, 2007). The law of adverse possession has been differentiated through the years under the influence of changes in the legal and social context of Britain. It should be noticed that ‘prior to 2003, a squatter could obtain adverse possession if he demonstrated uninterrupted factual possession of the land and an intention to possess the land for a period of 12 years; however under the 2002 Act, the period of time a squatter is required to be in adverse possession of registered land has been reduced to 10 years’ (Mace and Jones, 2007). Usually the application of the above provisions is highly doubted by the landowner (the one recognized directly by the law in accordance with a specific title). For this reason, the Courts in Britain have been asked to resolve the disputes related with the acquisition of the rights over land under the existence of specific circumstances where there is no legal title by the occupier of the land. Towards this direction it is noticed by Goymour (2006, 696) that ‘two important decisions have recently considered the effect of human rights law on domestic property law: Kay v. Lambeth L.B.C.; Leeds C.C. v. Price, and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom; in each case, the claimant brought a domestic proprietary claim, one successfully, the other unsuccessfully, against a defendant; the aggrieved party argued that the domestic legal outcome conflicted with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights’. Under these terms the Court (European Court of Human Rights) had to decide whether the provisions related with the acquisition of land had been violated or whether a totally legal acquisition of land had taken place through the occupation of land for a specific period of time. One of the most important cases regarding the specific issue has been the JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom (2007). In this case, the Court held that ‘since the Grahams [occupiers] enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant companies title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land; the above result did not accord with justice and could not be justified by practical considerations: the justification advanced for the right to acquire title to land by adverse possession – namely the avoidance of uncertainty had little relevance to the use of registered land where the owner was readily identifiable by inspecting the register of the relevant title at the Land Registry’ (JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom, 2007). The Court based its decision on the LRA 2002 but also on a series of other provisions like the following ones: ‘a) The Limitation Act 1980 (section 15) in which it is stated that “(1) No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person... (6) Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act contains provisions for determining the date of accrual of rights of action to recover land in the cases there mentioned.”’ (section 26, JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom, 2007). Another legislative text that has been considered extremely significant for the Court in the above case is the Halsburys Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Reissue 1998) which defines in section 258 that: ‘When the owner of land has been out of possession, and a stranger has been in possession, for a period sufficient to bar the owners right to re-enter or to recover possession by action, the owners title is extinguished, and the stranger acquires a title which is good against all the world, including the former owner’ (section 26, JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom, 2007). It is clear from the above that landowners under the LRA 2002 (as also under LRA 1925) cannot be considered as being protected from a potential loss of their land in accordance with the views of the law of adverse possession. The reduction of the period required for the acquisition of land through the specific ‘legal justification’ from 12 to 10 years has not led to the increase of the landowners’ rights. Regarding this issue it is noticed by Mace and Jones (2007) that ‘the 1980 Act regime continues to apply to unregistered land so paper owners of unregistered land might like to consider applying for voluntary registration in order to take advantage of the new "paper owner friendly" regime’. In any case the court will have to decide on the acquisition of land under the rules of the law of adverse possession as it is incorporated in all the legislative texts related with the protection of rights on land in Britain. Draft Plan The dissertation will follow a specific structure, which could be described as follows: Abstract, Chapter One [This will include the following sections: Introduction, Aims and Objectives of the Research, Research Methodology, Significance of the Study, Limitations of the project and outline of the project], Chapter Two [this will include only the Literature Review appropriately divided in sections – where possible, a section titled ‘Discussion on Literature’ will be put at the end of literature Chapter]; Chapter Three [this Chapter will be divided into the following sections: a) Statutes and b) Case law - this Chapter is going to be concluded with a section titled ‘Discussion on law related with adverse possession’]; Chapter Four [this will include the following two sections: a) Conclusions and b) Recommendations]. At the end of the paper the following sections will be included: a) References, b) Statutes and c) Case law. Source list Journals Conveyancer and Porperty Lawer Conv 2007 (Journal) November/December 2007 pages 552-558 - title adverse possession, human rights and land registration: and they all lived happily ever after? Goymour, A. (2006) Proprietary claims and human rights – a ‘reservoir of entitlement’? The Cambridge Law Journal, 65: 696-720 Property Law Journal (2007) No 196 Pages 2-5. Author Andrew Francis. Title Full Circle in the Pye Litigation Mace and Jones (2007) Adverse Possession, online, http://www.maceandjones.co.uk/news/archive/adverse-possession.html Case Law JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and another v United Kingdom (App no 44302/02) [2007] Ofulue v Bossert Statutes Law of Property Act 1925 Land Registration Act 1925 Land Registration Act 2002 Read More