Pilford & Anor v Greenmanor Ltd

Pilford & Anor v Greenmanor Ltd

The respondents' acts, including fencing, blocking access, constructing a step, storing materials, and altering the land, constituted sufficient factual possession and intention to possess for the requisite period; the judge was entitled to find adverse possession. However, the respondents' use of the appellant's land for vehicular access to No. 125, not covered by an easement, was an actionable wrong, but an injunction was inappropriate due to delay and expenditure by the respondents; damages in lieu of injunction should be assessed.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mr Laurence Pilford; Respondent/claimant: Mrs Doreen Pilford; Appellant/defendant: Greenmanor Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of counterclaim only; adverse possession finding upheld; damages in lieu of injunction ordered and remitted for assessment.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Easements, Injunctions, Damages in Lieu of Injunction, Counterclaim
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Easements Injunctions Damages in Lieu of Injunction Counterclaim

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Laurence Pilford

Respondent/claimant

Mrs Doreen Pilford

Respondent/claimant

Greenmanor Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acquired title to the compound land by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' acts constituted sufficient control and intention to possess
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for injunction and damages

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' acts, including fencing, blocking access, constructing a step, storing materials, and altering the land, constituted sufficient factual possession and intention to possess for the requisite period; the judge was entitled to find adverse possession. However, the respondents' use of the appellant's land for vehicular access to No. 125, not covered by an easement, was an actionable wrong, but an injunction was inappropriate due to delay and expenditure by the respondents; damages in lieu of injunction should be assessed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of counterclaim only; adverse possession finding upheld; damages in lieu of injunction ordered and remitted for assessment.

Orders

  • Adverse possession of compound land by respondents upheld
  • Appellant's counterclaim for injunction dismissed