In June 1985, Courtney becomes the tenant of a 2-bed house, set within a large tract of farmland owned by Brett. The tenancy permits the use of a sizeable field adjoining the house for grazing and general agriculture, a right which Courtney does not fully exercise. In fact, she has made use of a small plot nearest the house to grow tomatoes, sunflowers, bean sprouts, sweet corn, and radishes for domestic consumption.
When the tenancy expires in 1987, Courtney enters into a new tenancy for the house. However, the tenancy no longer mentions any permissions to use the adjoining field.
Nevertheless, Courtney continues to grow her food in the field and, in 2000, on the advice of a friend, sought to register her title acquired by adverse possession. Brett immediately sought to contest this, on the basis that he was preparing a sale of his land, inclusive of the field in question.
Which of the following TWO statements are most applicable to the above scenario?

Question

In June 1985, Courtney becomes the tenant of a 2-bed house, set within a large tract of farmland owned by Brett. The tenancy permits the use of a sizeable field adjoining the house for grazing and general agriculture, a right which Courtney does not fully exercise. In fact, she has made use of a small plot nearest the house to grow tomatoes, sunflowers, bean sprouts, sweet corn, and radishes for domestic consumption. 
 When the tenancy expires in 1987, Courtney enters into a new tenancy for the house. However, the tenancy no longer mentions any permissions to use the adjoining field. 
 Nevertheless, Courtney continues to grow her food in the field and, in 2000, on the advice of a friend, sought to register her title acquired by adverse possession. Brett immediately sought to contest this, on the basis that he was preparing a sale of his land, inclusive of the field in question. 
 Which of the following TWO statements are most applicable to the above scenario?

Answer

Courtney’s initial possession of the land in question was permitted and the fact that her tenancy was continuous means the permission to use the land in question was also impliedly continued

Answer

Brett could argue that Courtney has not demonstrated factual possession of the land because her behaviour is not proportionate

Answer

Courtney initially had permission to use the land in question, so she could only demonstrate her unequivocal possession adverse to Brett’s title for 13 years – this would still entitle her to be automatically registered as the proprietor of the land in question

Answer

Courtney has been in obvious possession of the land for 15 years, so would be entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land in question

Answer

Perceptions of witnesses about who appeared to be the possessor of the land could be drawn on to determine whether Courtney’s use of the land amounted to possession

Crowdly

In June 1985, Courtney becomes the tenant of a 2-bed house, set within a large t...

Want instant access to all verified answers on moodle.kent.ac.uk?