Cantwell & Ors v D Minney

Cantwell & Ors v D Minney

Mr Minney could not establish an equitable estoppel under paragraph 5(2) of schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 because he did not believe the land belonged to him and conceded he would have had no defence to possession proceedings during the relevant period. Therefore, his appeal was not reasonably arguable and permission to appeal was refused.

Parties
Claimants and Respondents: Cantwell, Davenport, Coulhurst & Coulhurst; Defendant and Appellant: Mr D Minney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Land Possession / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration Act 2002, Equitable Estoppel, Possession Proceedings
Land Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Land Registration Act 2002 Equitable Estoppel Possession Proceedings

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cantwell, Davenport, Coulhurst & Coulhurst

Claimants and Respondents

Mr D Minney

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Land Possession / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant had been in adverse possession of the land for the requisite period to defeat the claim for possession
  2. 2 Whether the defendant could rely on equitable estoppel under paragraph 5(2) of schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 as a defence
  3. 3 Whether new evidence (police report) could alter the findings of fact regarding the period of possession

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Minney could not establish an equitable estoppel under paragraph 5(2) of schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 because he did not believe the land belonged to him and conceded he would have had no defence to possession proceedings during the relevant period. Therefore, his appeal was not reasonably arguable and permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused