Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin & Ors [2007] EWHC 141 (Ch) (05 February 2007)

Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin & Ors [2007] EWHC 141 (Ch) (05 February 2007)

The Chaplins' occupation of the disputed strip was not permissive but adverse; the consensual siting of the fence did not amount to permission to possess the strip. The Adjudicator's acceptance of the Chaplins' evidence was implicit and supported by the evidence, and the legal error regarding subjective belief did not affect the outcome.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 141 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Hicks Developments Ltd; Respondent: Thomas William Chaplin; Respondent: Joyce Elinor Chaplin; Respondent: Stephen Lance Hillman; Respondent: Patricia Ann Hillman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Limitation Periods, Permission Vs Acquiescence
Property Law Land Law Adverse Possession Land Registration Limitation Periods Permission Vs Acquiescence

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

Parties

Hicks Developments Ltd

Appellant

Thomas William Chaplin

Respondent

Joyce Elinor Chaplin

Respondent

Stephen Lance Hillman

Respondent

Patricia Ann Hillman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Land Registry Adjudicator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chaplins acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the Chaplins' possession was permissive or adverse
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or failed to give adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Chaplins' occupation of the disputed strip was not permissive but adverse; the consensual siting of the fence did not amount to permission to possess the strip. The Adjudicator's acceptance of the Chaplins' evidence was implicit and supported by the evidence, and the legal error regarding subjective belief did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the Land Registry Adjudicator affirmed
  • Chaplins remain entitled to be registered as proprietors of the disputed strip