Land - Possession - Freehold proprietor

Balevents Ltd v Sartori: Chancery Division, Birmingham District Registry (Mr Justice Kitchin): 29 September 2011

The proceedings concerned a strip of land in front of a club, which was registered to the defendant. The defendant's father took possession of the land in 1974, which he used for a food business, which he ran from a trailer. In 1986, the defendant took the business over, and with it the possession of the land.

Subsequently, the club incorporated the land into its area, although the food trailer continued to operate. A number of businesses ran the club, and in 2003 the lease was assigned to the claimant company. A businessman, R, assisted with the funding of two of the businesses, including the claimant company. In May 2009, the defendant applied in his own name for freehold possessory title to the land. He was registered as freehold proprietor with possessory title with effect from May 2009. A dispute arose between R and the claimant, and in February 2010 their relationship broke down. The claimant issued proceedings.

The claimant disputed the continuing use of the trailer, contending that the business had never been in possession of the land, and that if it had been, it had not been in possession for the requisite period and, in any event, any title that the defendant might have had had been extinguished by the adverse possession of other businesses, including itself. It further contended that the defendant's application for possession of the land had been made without R's knowledge or consent, and was made in breach of the defendant's duty to the claimant.

The defendant submitted that at all times he had made it clear that the land had belonged to him, and that he had been entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land. The claim would be dismissed.

On the evidence, the defendant would be entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land. R had known of and consented to the defendant making the application to register the land in his own name and for his own benefit, and had known of all the material facts when that consent had been given.

On the facts, the defendant had been in adverse possession of the land for more than ten years when he had made his application to be registered as proprietor (see [96], [103], [112] of the judgment). The defendant had been entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land (see [112] of the judgment).

Anthony Verduyn (instructed by Challinors) for the claimant. William Hansen (instructed by Howell & Co) for the defendant.