Milton Keynes Council v Wilsher & Anorn [2022] EWHC 578 (QB) (23 March 2022)

Milton Keynes Council v Wilsher & Anorn [2022] EWHC 578 (QB) (23 March 2022)

The First Defendant and his father had factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the land for at least 12 years prior to 13 October 2003, demonstrated by continuous grazing, installation of a bridge, maintenance, and acts of control such as installing a gate and sign. These acts went beyond mere trespass and showed the exercise of rights as an owner. The claim for adverse possession is made out. The proprietary estoppel claim fails as the necessary elements were not established.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 578
Parties
Claimant: Milton Keynes Council; First Defendant: Mr Nathan Wilsher; Second Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for injunction dismissed; declaration of title by adverse possession granted to First Defendant, subject to submissions on form of order.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Proprietary Estoppel, Injunctions, Land Registration
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Proprietary Estoppel Injunctions Land Registration

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milton Keynes Council

Claimant

Mr Nathan Wilsher

First Defendant

Persons Unknown

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant and/or his father were in factual possession of the land with the requisite intention for at least 12 years prior to 13 October 2003 so as to acquire title by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant has the benefit of a proprietary estoppel preventing the Claimant from challenging his right to the land.

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant and his father had factual possession and the requisite intention to possess the land for at least 12 years prior to 13 October 2003, demonstrated by continuous grazing, installation of a bridge, maintenance, and acts of control such as installing a gate and sign. These acts went beyond mere trespass and showed the exercise of rights as an owner. The claim for adverse possession is made out. The proprietary estoppel claim fails as the necessary elements were not established.

Court Disposition

Claim for injunction dismissed; declaration of title by adverse possession granted to First Defendant, subject to submissions on form of order.

Orders

  • Claim for injunction against First Defendant dismissed.
  • First Defendant entitled to declaratory relief as to title by adverse possession.