News7 mins ago
Adverse Possesion
Hi does this ruling mean do you think that new claims for adverse possession will still be possible, ie to begin using property to count towards the adverse possession claim from now? Thanks in advance:)
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kvalidir. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Daily Mail isn't exactly noted for unbiased accuracy but on this occasion it has provided three separate legal opinions.
Firstly, Mr Justice Ousley has made his decision in the HIgh Court, so it now becomes a legal precedent.
Secondly, the opinion of Findlaw.co.uk (which has the backing of the mighty Reuters organisation, and its teams of lawyers, behind it) is cited.
Thirdly, the opinion of the vastly-experienced Riz Majid, from Neumans LLP, seems to concur with the other two.
So unless the case in the Daily Mail report is allowed to go before the Supreme Court (which I would think would be very unlikely), and the decision is then overturned, it would seem that the act of criminal trespass cannot prevent someone from successfully claiming adverse possession of a property, either now or in the future.
Firstly, Mr Justice Ousley has made his decision in the HIgh Court, so it now becomes a legal precedent.
Secondly, the opinion of Findlaw.co.uk (which has the backing of the mighty Reuters organisation, and its teams of lawyers, behind it) is cited.
Thirdly, the opinion of the vastly-experienced Riz Majid, from Neumans LLP, seems to concur with the other two.
So unless the case in the Daily Mail report is allowed to go before the Supreme Court (which I would think would be very unlikely), and the decision is then overturned, it would seem that the act of criminal trespass cannot prevent someone from successfully claiming adverse possession of a property, either now or in the future.
1 to 2 of 2
