Chapman & Anor v Godinn Properties Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 941 (27 June 2005)

Chapman & Anor v Godinn Properties Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 941 (27 June 2005)

The claimants' acts—building and maintaining entrances, mowing, planting, and maintaining the disputed strip—constituted sufficient factual possession and intention to possess, making their claim to adverse possession successful. The judge was entitled to find that these acts, in the context of the land's nature, were all that could reasonably be expected to demonstrate exclusive possession.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 941
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Chapman; Claimant/respondent: Fiona Rivers Chapman; First Defendant/appellant: Godinn Properties Limited; Second Defendant: David Robert Stirling; Third Defendant: Jackie Stirling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Rectification of Land Register
Property Law Land Law Adverse Possession Land Registration Rectification of Land Register

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Chapman

Claimant/respondent

Fiona Rivers Chapman

Claimant/respondent

Godinn Properties Limited

First Defendant/appellant

David Robert Stirling

Second Defendant

Jackie Stirling

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants established title to the disputed strip by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the registration of possessory title by the defendant was obtained by misleading statutory declarations
  3. 3 Whether the judge correctly applied the legal principles of adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' acts—building and maintaining entrances, mowing, planting, and maintaining the disputed strip—constituted sufficient factual possession and intention to possess, making their claim to adverse possession successful. The judge was entitled to find that these acts, in the context of the land's nature, were all that could reasonably be expected to demonstrate exclusive possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that claimants have established possessory title to the disputed strip
  • Rectification of Land Registry title SY563632 to remove the disputed strip