Allen v Matthews [2007] EWCA Civ 216 (13 March 2007)

Allen v Matthews [2007] EWCA Civ 216 (13 March 2007)

The letter of 7 June 1994 was not an acknowledgment of title by the person in possession for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, as it was written on behalf of a dissolved company and not by or on behalf of the actual possessor. There was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings that occupation was adverse and not with consent. Fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for admission on appeal.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 216
Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Alfred Allen; Defendant/appellant: Charles Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order for possession set aside; Respondent's Notice and application to admit fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Periods, Acknowledgment of Title, Bankruptcy and Land Title, Consent and Occupation
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation Periods Acknowledgment of Title Bankruptcy and Land Title Consent and Occupation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Alfred Allen

Claimant/respondent

Charles Matthews

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter dated 7 June 1994 constituted an acknowledgment of title for the purposes of sections 29 and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the person in possession (or their agent) made the acknowledgment
  3. 3 Whether occupation by Mr Matthews and Mr Penny was with the consent of Mr Allen, thus defeating adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 7 June 1994 was not an acknowledgment of title by the person in possession for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, as it was written on behalf of a dissolved company and not by or on behalf of the actual possessor. There was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings that occupation was adverse and not with consent. Fresh evidence did not meet the threshold for admission on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order for possession set aside; Respondent's Notice and application to admit fresh evidence refused.

Orders

  • Order for possession in favour of Mr Allen set aside
  • Counterclaim for adverse possession succeeds