Long & Ors v Sava

Long & Ors v Sava

Mr Sava failed to prove factual possession and intention to possess the disputed land for 12 years prior to 13 October 2003. The Deputy Adjudicator's findings were against the weight of evidence, and the activities relied upon did not amount to exclusive possession or clear intention to possess. The appeal is allowed and Mr Sava's claim fails.

Parties
First Appellant: Philip James Long; First Appellant: Frederick Charles Satow; Second Appellant: Ipe Jacobs; Second Appellant: Richard White; Appellant (as LPA Receivers Appointed): SS Global Limited; Appellant (as LPA Receivers Appointed): Delphis Bank Limited; Respondent/applicant: Christos Kyriacou Sava
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Appeals, Factual Findings
Property Law Land Law Adverse Possession Land Registration Appeals Factual Findings

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

Parties

Philip James Long

First Appellant

Frederick Charles Satow

First Appellant

Ipe Jacobs

Second Appellant

Richard White

Second Appellant

SS Global Limited

Appellant (as LPA Receivers Appointed)

Delphis Bank Limited

Appellant (as LPA Receivers Appointed)

Christos Kyriacou Sava

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Sava acquired title to disputed land by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether Deputy Adjudicator's findings of fact were against the weight of evidence
  3. 3 Whether factual possession and intention to possess were established for 12 years prior to 13 October 2003

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sava failed to prove factual possession and intention to possess the disputed land for 12 years prior to 13 October 2003. The Deputy Adjudicator's findings were against the weight of evidence, and the activities relied upon did not amount to exclusive possession or clear intention to possess. The appeal is allowed and Mr Sava's claim fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Mr Sava's application for adverse possession fails
  • Minute of Order to be prepared in accordance with judgment