Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin & Ors

Hicks Developments Ltd v Chaplin & Ors

The Adjudicator's acceptance of the Chaplins' evidence regarding their acts of possession was implicit and supported by site observations; no permission to occupy or possess the strip was implied or expressed by Hicks, so the Chaplins' possession was adverse and sufficient for title acquisition.

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
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Permission Vs Acquiescence, Judicial Reasoning, Appeals Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Land Registration Permission Vs Acquiescence Judicial Reasoning Appeals Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr and Mrs Chaplin acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator failed to address factual issues regarding acts of possession
  3. 3 Whether the Chaplins' possession was with the implied permission of Hicks

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator's acceptance of the Chaplins' evidence regarding their acts of possession was implicit and supported by site observations; no permission to occupy or possess the strip was implied or expressed by Hicks, so the Chaplins' possession was adverse and sufficient for title acquisition.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Hicks Developments Ltd is dismissed.
  • The Adjudicator's order in favour of Mr and Mrs Chaplin stands.