Maurice Edward Henwood v Peter Thomas Galton Copeland & Ors

Maurice Edward Henwood v Peter Thomas Galton Copeland & Ors

The claimant failed to establish possessory title to the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, or the Driveway, as his acts were consistent with a right of way or were by licence, not adverse possession. However, the claimant established possessory title to the Strip by acts of possession and exclusion for over 12 years prior to registration. The land register should be altered to reflect his title to the Strip and his right of way over the Driveway. The claims in trespass and nuisance largely fail, except for limited trespass by the claimant on the Lower Quay and related acts, for which damages are to be assessed.

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/boundary Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaims allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Boundary Disputes, Trespass, Nuisance
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Land Registration Boundary Disputes Trespass Nuisance

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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/boundary Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has acquired possessory title to the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, the Driveway, and the Strip by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the land register should be altered to reflect any possessory title
  3. 3 Whether the claimant or defendants have committed trespass or nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish possessory title to the Lower Quay, Hick’s Meadow, or the Driveway, as his acts were consistent with a right of way or were by licence, not adverse possession. However, the claimant established possessory title to the Strip by acts of possession and exclusion for over 12 years prior to registration. The land register should be altered to reflect his title to the Strip and his right of way over the Driveway. The claims in trespass and nuisance largely fail, except for limited trespass by the claimant on the Lower Quay and related acts, for which damages are to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaims allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of claimant’s possessory title to the Strip and order to alter the land register accordingly.
  • Order to alter the land register to record claimant’s right of way over the Driveway.