Parshall v Hackney

Parshall v Hackney

Concurrent registration of title to the disputed land meant that possession by the respondent and her predecessors was not unlawful or adverse; rectification of the register is a necessary pre-condition to establishing a right of action for recovery; time did not run under the Limitation Act 1980; the respondent did not acquire possessory title or an easement over the disputed land.

Parties
Appellant: Horace Parshall; Respondent: Clara Hackney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Rectification of Land Register, Concurrent Registration, Limitation Period, Easements
Property Law Land Registration Adverse Possession Rectification of Land Register Concurrent Registration Limitation Period Easements

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 / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possessory title can be acquired by adverse possession when the possessor is a registered proprietor
  2. 2 Whether rectification of the land register is a pre-condition to an action for recovery of land
  3. 3 Effect of concurrent registration of title to the same land

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent registration of title to the disputed land meant that possession by the respondent and her predecessors was not unlawful or adverse; rectification of the register is a necessary pre-condition to establishing a right of action for recovery; time did not run under the Limitation Act 1980; the respondent did not acquire possessory title or an easement over the disputed land.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Rectification of the land register to correct the mistaken inclusion of the disputed land in No 31's title
  • No possessory title or easement acquired by respondent