ADVERSE POSSESSION & EUROPEAN LAW 2008

J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LTD AND J.A. PYE (OXFORD) LAND LTD. v THE UNITED KINGDOM

In Pye & Pye v. The Unitied Kingdom the applicant (a group of companies) brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the United Kingdom law on adverse possession operated in violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).

The persons in possession of the lands in question, the Grahams, had used the land for farming from 1984 until 1999 without the permission of the applicant companies. They had registered cautions in the Land Registry against the applicant companies’ title on the grounds that they had obtained title by adverse possession.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides:-

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

The Court ruled that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. The applicant companies were not without procedural protection. It was continually open to them to bring an action for re-possession of the land and such an action would have stopped time running. The registered land regime in the United Kingdom is a reflection of a long-established system where a term of years’ possession gives sufficient title to sell.