Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 513 (Ch) (14 March 2007)

Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 513 (Ch) (14 March 2007)

The Defendants established, on the balance of probabilities, that they or their predecessors exercised sufficient factual possession and intention to possess the disputed foreshore and riverbed areas for the statutory period, thereby extinguishing the Claimant's paper title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 513 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Andrew Roberts (suing under the name of Mark Andrew Tudor, Lord Marcher of Trelleck); First Defendant: Swangrove Estates Limited; Second Defendant: Crown Estate Commissioners; Third Defendant: John Wardlaw Hanbury-Tenison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (adverse Possession)
Outcome
Defendants' claims of adverse possession against the Claimant succeed on the preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Foreshore and Riverbed Title, Paper Title Vs Possession, Unum Quid Doctrine
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Foreshore and Riverbed Title Paper Title Vs Possession Unum Quid Doctrine

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Andrew Roberts (suing under the name of Mark Andrew Tudor, Lord Marcher of Trelleck)

Claimant

Swangrove Estates Limited

First Defendant

Crown Estate Commissioners

Second Defendant

John Wardlaw Hanbury-Tenison

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (adverse Possession)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants have acquired title to disputed foreshore and riverbed areas by adverse possession against the Claimant or his predecessors.
  2. 2 What constitutes sufficient factual possession and animus possidendi for adverse possession of tidal riverbed and foreshore.
  3. 3 Whether acts of possession on part of a tract can constitute possession of the whole (unum quid).

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants established, on the balance of probabilities, that they or their predecessors exercised sufficient factual possession and intention to possess the disputed foreshore and riverbed areas for the statutory period, thereby extinguishing the Claimant's paper title by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Defendants' claims of adverse possession against the Claimant succeed on the preliminary issues.

Orders

  • It is assumed for the purposes of the preliminary issues that the Defendants have acquired title by adverse possession to the respective areas claimed against the Claimant.
  • Further proceedings, if any, to address paper title or other issues are to be determined separately.