Parshall v Hackney [2013] EWCA Civ 240 (26 March 2013)

Parshall v Hackney [2013] EWCA Civ 240 (26 March 2013)

Where two parties are concurrently registered as proprietors of the same land, possession by one is not adverse to the other within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980. Rectification of the register is a necessary precondition to determining title, and time does not run for adverse possession until rectification. The respondent could not acquire possessory title or a prescriptive easement over the disputed land while holding registered title to it. The register should be rectified to correct the Land Registry's mistake.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 240
Parties
Appellant: Horace Parshall; Respondent: Clara Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court, Following an Initial Decision by a Deputy Adjudicator to the Land Registry
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Rectification of Land Register, Concurrent Registered Titles, Limitation Periods, Easements, General Boundaries
Property Law Land Registration Adverse Possession Rectification of Land Register Concurrent Registered Titles Limitation Periods Easements General Boundaries

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

Parties

Horace Parshall

Appellant

Clara Hackney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the High Court, Following an Initial Decision by a Deputy Adjudicator to the Land Registry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adverse possession can be acquired over land where both parties hold concurrent registered titles under the Land Registration Act 1925 and Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether rectification of the land register is a precondition to an action for recovery of land in cases of double registration
  3. 3 Whether an easement can be acquired by prescription over land where the dominant and servient tenements are both registered to the same party

Ratio Decidendi

Where two parties are concurrently registered as proprietors of the same land, possession by one is not adverse to the other within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980. Rectification of the register is a necessary precondition to determining title, and time does not run for adverse possession until rectification. The respondent could not acquire possessory title or a prescriptive easement over the disputed land while holding registered title to it. The register should be rectified to correct the Land Registry's mistake.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Rectification of the land register to remove the disputed land from the respondent's title and restore it to the appellant's title
  • No possessory title or easement acquired by the respondent over the disputed land