Adverse Possession: Pye v Graham (2002)

View mindmap
  • Pye v Graham [2002]
    • Facts
      • Pye was the registered proprieter of development land
      • The land in question was adjoined to Graham's farm who had used that land for a long period of time
    • Factual Possession
      • Land enclosed by hedges with a gate to which only the Grahams had a key
    • Intention to Possess
      • Pye initially granted a short grazing agreement to the Grahams
        • On expiry, Pye refused the request for renewal
        • Grahams continued to used the land which went beyond the original agreement
    • Could the Grahams take the land?
      • NOTE
        • 1. Graham's willingness to enter into an agreement with Pye
        • 2. The absence of an ouster
      • Decisions by the Courts
        • High Court: Yes
        • Court of Appeal: No
        • House of Lords: Yes
          • No licence was offered and so they were not on the land under licence - therefore AP
        • European Court of Human Right (action against the UK): Yes
          • AP is consistent with Human Rights (ECHR Art 8 and Protocol 1, Art 1)


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Land resources »