Essay about Property Assignment

3306 Words Nov 26th, 2011 14 Pages
Introduction to Property Law:

Coursework Assignment
Mon, 11 July, 2011

Word count - 2380

1 (a) With regards to the European Court of Human Rights decision in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 44302/02) 30 August 2007, and the Court of Appeals decision in Emmanuel Ofolue v. Erica Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7; discuss the extent to which the provisions of the European Conventions on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, have impacted the doctrine of adverse possession in England & Wales.

I will discuss the cases and the impact which the HRA 1998 and the ECHR have had on the decision making process within the courts with regards to the doctrine of, “adverse possession”, in the UK.

Rationale
…show more content…
However ….it is clear that the relevant provisions did more than merely preclude the applicants from invoking the assistance of the court to recover possession of the property concerned: the combined effect of the provisions was both to deprive the applicants of their substantive property rights and to preclude them from lawfully repossessing the land, the beneficial title to which they had lost".
This is an interpretation of events which shows that the applicants rights under art..1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR have been violated .
The European court take the position in majority that the second paragraph of protocol 1 is pertinent and base their decision on the applicability of the, “ Control of the use of land” therein, but this seems to conflict with HRA 1998 section 3(1) “ so far as possible to do so, primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with convention rights”.
If Pye where clearly deprived of their land then what relevance would the control of use of land have to their plea or how in any right minded persons view would this approach to a plea for compensation of loss be viewed in terms of the application of natural justice/fairness to Pye’s predicament.
As the end of the limitation period falls before the start of the HRA 1998 legislation coming into effect then it is decided that Pye is not protected under the art 1 protocol 1 but subject to the current legislation of LRA 1925 s75 and LA

Related Documents