Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1989] EWCA Civ 11 (13 February 1989)

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1989] EWCA Civ 11 (13 February 1989)

The respondent had acquired adverse possession of the plot by 28 October 1973, having factual possession and the requisite intention to possess to the exclusion of the Council. The doctrine from Leigh v. Jack is no longer good law post-Limitation Act 1980, and the 'without prejudice' letter was admissible as it was not a negotiating document. The Council's title was extinguished under the Limitation Act 1980.

Citation
[1989] EWCA Civ 11
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Buckinghamshire County Council; Respondent (defendant): Christopher John Moran
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Law, Evidence (without Prejudice Communications)
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Law Evidence (without Prejudice Communications)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buckinghamshire County Council

Appellant (plaintiff)

Christopher John Moran

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acquired title to land by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the 'without prejudice' letter of 20 January 1976 was admissible in evidence
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine from Leigh v. Jack remains good law post-Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had acquired adverse possession of the plot by 28 October 1973, having factual possession and the requisite intention to possess to the exclusion of the Council. The doctrine from Leigh v. Jack is no longer good law post-Limitation Act 1980, and the 'without prejudice' letter was admissible as it was not a negotiating document. The Council's title was extinguished under the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused