Allen v Matthews

Allen v Matthews

The letter of June 7, 1994 was not an acknowledgment of title by the person in possession for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. The acknowledgment must be by or on behalf of the person in possession, and the letter was written on behalf of a dissolved company, not Mr Penny or Templewing Ltd. There are no grounds to interfere with the judge's findings on adverse possession, and no basis for admitting new evidence regarding Mr Penny's occupation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Alfred Allen; Defendant/appellant: Charles Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside; application to admit new evidence refused; cross-appeal on costs refused.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Acknowledgment of Title, Consent and Occupation, Costs
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Acknowledgment of Title Consent and Occupation Costs

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Alfred Allen

Claimant/respondent

Charles Matthews

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter of June 7, 1994 constituted an acknowledgment of title for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the acknowledgment was made by the person in possession
  3. 3 Whether occupation by Mr Matthews and Mr Penny was with the consent of Mr Allen or adverse

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of June 7, 1994 was not an acknowledgment of title by the person in possession for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. The acknowledgment must be by or on behalf of the person in possession, and the letter was written on behalf of a dissolved company, not Mr Penny or Templewing Ltd. There are no grounds to interfere with the judge's findings on adverse possession, and no basis for admitting new evidence regarding Mr Penny's occupation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment set aside; application to admit new evidence refused; cross-appeal on costs refused.

Orders

  • Mr Matthews' appeal allowed; judgment for Mr Allen set aside.
  • Application to admit new evidence refused.