Hyde v. Pearce [1981] EWCA Civ 3 (18 November 1981)
Mr. Hyde's possession was not adverse but referable to his status as purchaser under a subsisting contract for sale; he never repudiated the contract, and both parties treated the contract as continuing. Therefore, the requirements for adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1939 were not met, and title did not pass to Mr. Hyde by limitation.
- Citation
- [1981] EWCA Civ 3
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mr. Hyde; Defendant: Mr. Pearce
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Equitable Interests, Contractual Licences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr. Hyde
Plaintiff
Mr. Pearce
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr. Hyde acquired title to 138 Clouds Hill Road by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1939
- 2 Whether Mr. Hyde's possession was adverse or referable to a subsisting contract for sale
Ratio Decidendi
Mr. Hyde's possession was not adverse but referable to his status as purchaser under a subsisting contract for sale; he never repudiated the contract, and both parties treated the contract as continuing. Therefore, the requirements for adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1939 were not met, and title did not pass to Mr. Hyde by limitation.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Judge's order relating to title to the land is quashed.
- Declaration that the defendant is entitled to fee simple absolute in possession of No. 138 Clouds Hill Road free of all interest legal or equitable in the said property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment