Bernard Healey v William Fraine (senior) & Ors

Bernard Healey v William Fraine (senior) & Ors

The Judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the Defence and Counterclaim in its entirety because the draft was internally self-contradictory, pleading both adverse possession and occupation as a licensee for the same period, which is impermissible at law. Adverse possession under the LRA 2002 continues to require occupation without the owner's permission; one cannot be both a licensee and in adverse possession at the same time.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Michelle Mary Healey (a protected person by her litigation friend Bernard Healey); Claimant / Respondent: Bernard Healey (representing the Estate of Michelle Mary Healey); Defendant / Appellant: William Fraine (senior); Defendant / Appellant: William Fraine (junior); Defendant / Appellant: Callum Fraine; Defendant / Appellant: Clara Bar-Hall; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision on Permission to Amend Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Amendment of Pleadings, Registered Land, Limitation of Actions
Land Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Amendment of Pleadings Registered Land Limitation of Actions

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Mary Healey (a protected person by her litigation friend Bernard Healey)

Claimant / Respondent

Bernard Healey (representing the Estate of Michelle Mary Healey)

Claimant / Respondent

William Fraine (senior)

Defendant / Appellant

William Fraine (junior)

Defendant / Appellant

Callum Fraine

Defendant / Appellant

Clara Bar-Hall

Defendant / Appellant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court Decision on Permission to Amend Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft Amended Defence and Counterclaim was internally contradictory and should be refused in its entirety
  2. 2 Whether adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 can be pleaded concurrently with occupation as a licensee
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in refusing permission to amend the Defence and Counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the Defence and Counterclaim in its entirety because the draft was internally self-contradictory, pleading both adverse possession and occupation as a licensee for the same period, which is impermissible at law. Adverse possession under the LRA 2002 continues to require occupation without the owner's permission; one cannot be both a licensee and in adverse possession at the same time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order of Her Honour Judge Evans upheld refusing permission to amend Defence and Counterclaim.