Archive for April 2005
There was a long standing dispute concerning the occupation of agricultural land. In 1985 a notice to quit was served on the occupier and one of the occupants claimed a life tenancy. Negotiations continued until the occupant died in 2000. The occupant’s children claimed adverse possession. The court held that the occupation was with the implied permission of the owner and he was entitled to possession.
D1’s husband sold his land to C’s predecessor in title on condition he could live there rent free. D1 agreed to give vacant possession at any time and in 1989 C purchased the property and D1 left the property and her daughter and son-in-law (D2 and D3) moved in. In 2001 C sought to determine Ds’ licence. Defendants claimed adverse possession and the court held that D2 and D3 lacked sufficient intention to possess as they believed their entitlement to occupy was by virtue of permission given to D1 by the paper owner.
The Appellant estate agency was entitled to receive commission when contracts had been exchanged but the purchase had not been completed. The terms of the contract were clear and provided the Appellant was entitled to receive the commission upon exchange of contracts.
The CA considered that it would be a complete injustice to conclude that a consent order settling a boundary dispute was void for uncertainty. Whilst it may be difficult to find the line of the disputed boundary on the ground, it was not practically or legally impossible to implement the parties’ agreement.