Hill & Anor v Transport for London

Hill & Anor v Transport for London

Paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980 applies to successors to the Crown regardless of whether the right of action originally accrued to the Crown or a predecessor. Therefore, Transport for London was entitled to the extended limitation period, and the claimants had not extinguished the title by adverse possession before the land vested in Tfl. Additionally, the claimants failed to prove on the facts that they were in adverse possession prior to 1 April 1986.

Parties
Claimant: Norman Hill; Claimant: Terence Welford; Defendant: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Periods, Crown Land, Compulsory Acquisition
Property Law Land Law Adverse Possession Limitation Periods Crown Land Compulsory Acquisition

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Hill

Claimant

Terence Welford

Claimant

Transport for London

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession prior to its vesting in Transport for London.
  2. 2 Interpretation of paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980 regarding limitation periods for successors to the Crown.

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980 applies to successors to the Crown regardless of whether the right of action originally accrued to the Crown or a predecessor. Therefore, Transport for London was entitled to the extended limitation period, and the claimants had not extinguished the title by adverse possession before the land vested in Tfl. Additionally, the claimants failed to prove on the facts that they were in adverse possession prior to 1 April 1986.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.