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 were in factual possession of the land with the necessary intention to possess for at least 12 years before 13 October 2003, as evidenced by their continuous and exclusive use, construction of a bridge, installation of a gate and sign, and holding themselves out as entitled to grant permission to others. These acts went beyond mere trespass and demonstrated the requisite control and intention. The proprietary estoppel claim failed as the necessary elements were not established.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 578 (QB)
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
Claim for Injunction and Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for injunction dismissed; declaratory relief granted to First Defendant on adverse possession; proprietary estoppel claim fails as academic.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Proprietary Estoppel, Land Registration, Injunctions
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Proprietary Estoppel Land Registration Injunctions

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 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

Claim for Injunction and Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief / High Court Judgment After Trial

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 before 13 October 2003 so as to acquire title by adverse possession; 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 were in factual possession of the land with the necessary intention to possess for at least 12 years before 13 October 2003, as evidenced by their continuous and exclusive use, construction of a bridge, installation of a gate and sign, and holding themselves out as entitled to grant permission to others. These acts went beyond mere trespass and demonstrated the requisite control and intention. The proprietary estoppel claim failed as the necessary elements were not established.

Court Disposition

Claim for injunction dismissed; declaratory relief granted to First Defendant on adverse possession; proprietary estoppel claim fails as academic.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for injunction against First Defendant dismissed.
  • First Defendant entitled to declaratory relief as to title by adverse possession, subject to submissions on form of order.