Introduction and Historical Roots:
The Doctrine of Adverse possession has astounded lawyers from it’s induction in law, accellerating intense legal debate for the justification for this "strange and wonderful" doctrine per Holmes. From it’s appearance in the Code of Hammurabi to it’s presence with English lawyers in decisions ranging from the Statute of Wills in 1540, the Statute of Tenures in 1660 and even in current pending cases, this doctrine has been controversial in every respect ranging from public policy considerations to human rights law. Professor Wade described it as “a remarkably efficient catalyst for revealing the fundamental notions of title to land and of the system of estates”. This case note will reflect on the current …show more content…
Charleton J. placed an emphasis that occasional visits to the property or to “sporadically use” the property would be insufficient to claim rights to it. There must be an overall use of the land which is inconsistent with the title holder’s wishes as outlined in Hughes v Griffin. The courts also affirmed that it was equitable to consider the character and range of uses to which land may be used to determined whether the usage has been contrary to the intention of the paper owner. Although Mr Dunne enjoyed agricultural and leisure interests from the land, critics claim that his possession was “too ambiguous”. Moreover, it was held that by granting the CIÉ caretaker permission to access the land to inspect and repair the well was in fact inconsistent with the possession which he claimed to have. Thus, this was one of the primary factors which quashed his …show more content…
In Roberts v Swangrove Estates, Lindsay J. described the proposition that the true owner is relevant as “heretical and wrong”. Moreover, in Prudential Assurance Co v Waterloo Real Estate Inc, the court outlined that the unequivocal nature of the conduct which is of relevance, even where the paper owner has no immediate use designated for it. In Dunne, Laffoy J. endorsed Charleton J.’s viewpoint that this issue is not of relevance in this appeal. However, this could have been an ample opportunity for the courts to clarify the impact which the future intention of the landholder in particular, if any, has on proceedings in this genre of case, in particular evaluating whether the precedent issued in Feeney should be adhered to or not. To quote Nourse L.J. on this issue: “that an intention of the paper owner is not relevant in itself though it may alter the quality of the intention of the adverse possessor should such an intention on the part of the owner be known to the
The Doctrine of Adverse possession has astounded lawyers from it’s induction in law, accellerating intense legal debate for the justification for this "strange and wonderful" doctrine per Holmes. From it’s appearance in the Code of Hammurabi to it’s presence with English lawyers in decisions ranging from the Statute of Wills in 1540, the Statute of Tenures in 1660 and even in current pending cases, this doctrine has been controversial in every respect ranging from public policy considerations to human rights law. Professor Wade described it as “a remarkably efficient catalyst for revealing the fundamental notions of title to land and of the system of estates”. This case note will reflect on the current …show more content…
Charleton J. placed an emphasis that occasional visits to the property or to “sporadically use” the property would be insufficient to claim rights to it. There must be an overall use of the land which is inconsistent with the title holder’s wishes as outlined in Hughes v Griffin. The courts also affirmed that it was equitable to consider the character and range of uses to which land may be used to determined whether the usage has been contrary to the intention of the paper owner. Although Mr Dunne enjoyed agricultural and leisure interests from the land, critics claim that his possession was “too ambiguous”. Moreover, it was held that by granting the CIÉ caretaker permission to access the land to inspect and repair the well was in fact inconsistent with the possession which he claimed to have. Thus, this was one of the primary factors which quashed his …show more content…
In Roberts v Swangrove Estates, Lindsay J. described the proposition that the true owner is relevant as “heretical and wrong”. Moreover, in Prudential Assurance Co v Waterloo Real Estate Inc, the court outlined that the unequivocal nature of the conduct which is of relevance, even where the paper owner has no immediate use designated for it. In Dunne, Laffoy J. endorsed Charleton J.’s viewpoint that this issue is not of relevance in this appeal. However, this could have been an ample opportunity for the courts to clarify the impact which the future intention of the landholder in particular, if any, has on proceedings in this genre of case, in particular evaluating whether the precedent issued in Feeney should be adhered to or not. To quote Nourse L.J. on this issue: “that an intention of the paper owner is not relevant in itself though it may alter the quality of the intention of the adverse possessor should such an intention on the part of the owner be known to the