Zarb & Anor v Parry & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1306 (15 November 2011)

Zarb & Anor v Parry & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1306 (15 November 2011)

The Court held that the Ceens' and Parrys' possession was not with Mr Little's consent but was adverse; the Zarbs' acts in July 2007 did not amount to retaking possession or interrupting the Parrys' adverse possession; and the Parrys (and their predecessors) reasonably believed they owned the Strip for the requisite period. Thus, the Parrys acquired title to the Strip by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1306
Parties
Appellants: Zarb & Anr; Respondents: Parry & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Boundary Disputes, Land Registration Act 2002, Registered Land, Title to Land
Property Law Land Registration Adverse Possession Boundary Disputes Land Registration Act 2002 Registered Land Title to Land

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zarb & Anr

Appellants

Parry & Anr

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ceens' possession of the Strip was with Mr Little's consent and thus not adverse
  2. 2 Whether the Parrys' adverse possession was interrupted by the Zarbs' attempt to fence off the Strip in July 2007
  3. 3 Whether the Parrys satisfied the requirement of reasonable belief in ownership under paragraph 5(4)(c) of schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Ceens' and Parrys' possession was not with Mr Little's consent but was adverse; the Zarbs' acts in July 2007 did not amount to retaking possession or interrupting the Parrys' adverse possession; and the Parrys (and their predecessors) reasonably believed they owned the Strip for the requisite period. Thus, the Parrys acquired title to the Strip by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the Zarbs is dismissed.