Estate in Land in UK Law

In my judgment, it has first to be considered what land is referred to and denoted in the conveyance to the Plaintiff of the plot which he bought. The plan is to be looked at in order to assist in identifying the plot of land. If the plan is so used, there is nothing which suggests that the lines of the boundaries connecting the frontage to Hamlet Road with the rear are other than straight. That they should be so would, in my judgment, be the natural supposition and inference.

A balance has to be maintained between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the right of his neighbour not to be interfered with. It is impossible to give any precise or universal formula, but it may broadly be said that a useful test is perhaps what is reasonable according to the ordinary usages of mankind living in society, or more correctly in a particular society. Negligence, moreover, is not a necessary condition of a claim for nuisance.

When the true owner of land intends to use it for a particular purpose in the future, but meanwhile has no immediate use for it, and so leaves it unoccupied, he does not lose his title to it simply because some other person enters on it and uses it for some temporary surpose, like stacking materials; or for some seasonal purpose, like growing vegetables. The line between acts of user and acts of possession is too fine for words.

Nevertheless most scholars agree that the doctrine is based on three main elements, although they express them in slightly different terms: a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance (see Megarry & Wade, Law of Real Property, 7th edition (2008) para 16-001; Gray & Gray, Elements of Land Law, 5th edition (2009) para 9.2.8; Snell's Equity, 31st edition (2005) paras 10-16 to 10-19; Gardner, An Introduction to Land Law (2007) para 7.1.1).

If in any given case the land in dispute is unbuilt land and the squatter is aware that the owner, while having no present use for it, has a purpose in mind for its use in the future, the court is likely to require very clear evidence before it can be satisfied that the squatter who claims a possessory title has not only established factual possession of the land, but also the requisite intention to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow.

No doubt the use of the land by the owner may be relevant to the question of whether he would have regarded persons using it for sports and pastimes as doing so "as of right". But, with respect to the judge, I do not agree that the low-level agricultural activities must be regarded as having been inconsistent with use for sports and pastimes for the purposes of section 22 if in practice they were not.

If on a building estate a restrictive covenant is broken by any plot holder it is potentially an interference with the rights of all the other plot owners. It may be such that it is a momentary irritation to the owner of land some distance away. The nearer it is the greater the possibility of it being an interference with the amenities of owners.