Anthony Charles Clapham & Ors v Dee Narga

Anthony Charles Clapham & Ors v Dee Narga

The appellants had acquired title to the Disputed Land by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered. The general boundaries rule means the title plan does not determine the precise boundary, and the registered title did not include the Disputed Land. Section 75 of the LRA 1925 did not apply because the land was not within the registered title and because title had already been extinguished. Section 29 of the LRA 2002 did not affect the appellants' interests. The appellants are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the Disputed Land.

Parties
Appellant: Anthony Charles Clapham; Appellant: Amanda Clapham; Appellant: David Wright; Appellant: Laura Wright; Respondent: Dee Narga
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, General Boundaries Rule, Boundary Disputes
Land Law Property Law Adverse Possession Land Registration General Boundaries Rule Boundary Disputes

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Charles Clapham

Appellant

Amanda Clapham

Appellant

David Wright

Appellant

Laura Wright

Appellant

Dee Narga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants acquired title to the Disputed Land by adverse possession prior to first registration of Brook Barn
  2. 2 Whether section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925 applies where title was extinguished by adverse possession before first registration
  3. 3 Whether the general boundaries rule affects the extent of registered title in the context of adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had acquired title to the Disputed Land by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered. The general boundaries rule means the title plan does not determine the precise boundary, and the registered title did not include the Disputed Land. Section 75 of the LRA 1925 did not apply because the land was not within the registered title and because title had already been extinguished. Section 29 of the LRA 2002 did not affect the appellants' interests. The appellants are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the Disputed Land.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The Claphams and Wrights are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the Disputed Land.