Henwood v Copeland & Ors [2023] EWHC 598 (Ch) (27 March 2023)

Henwood v Copeland & Ors [2023] EWHC 598 (Ch) (27 March 2023)

The claimant failed to establish the necessary elements of adverse possession over the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, the Strip, and the Driveway, as the defendants and their predecessors maintained control, granted licences, and exercised rights inconsistent with exclusive possession by the claimant. The boundaries as registered are upheld, and the claimant’s claims for rectification and rights of way are dismissed.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 598 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Maurice Edward Henwood; Defendant: Peter Thomas Galton Copeland; Defendant: Janet Thornhill Copeland; Defendant: Alan Michael Moore McGaw; Defendant: Susan Janet McGaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Boundary Disputes, Land Registration Act 2002, Easements and Rights of Way, Possessory Title, Conveyancing, Partition of Land
Property Law Land Registration Trusts and Probate Adverse Possession Boundary Disputes Land Registration Act 2002 Easements and Rights of Way Possessory Title +2 more

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

Parties

Maurice Edward Henwood

Claimant

Peter Thomas Galton Copeland

Defendant

Janet Thornhill Copeland

Defendant

Alan Michael Moore McGaw

Defendant

Susan Janet McGaw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant acquired possessory title to the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, the Strip, and the Driveway by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the boundaries between Carrick and Pentui are as claimed by the claimant or the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the land register should be altered to reflect the claimant’s asserted rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish the necessary elements of adverse possession over the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, the Strip, and the Driveway, as the defendants and their predecessors maintained control, granted licences, and exercised rights inconsistent with exclusive possession by the claimant. The boundaries as registered are upheld, and the claimant’s claims for rectification and rights of way are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant’s claims for possessory title, rectification of the land register, and boundary alteration are dismissed.
  • No order for rectification of the land register is made.