 In this activity, you've been asked to consider what the squatter must prove in order to show that he has been in adverse possession. Now, defining the meaning of adverse, defining the meaning of possession is absolutely crucial because the breadth or narrowness of these concepts will determine how likely it is that squatters will win and become the owners of somebody else's land. For example, if we define possession very, very broadly, we are making it easier for squatters to acquire ownership rights. Now, as you will have seen, we see definitions of both possession and adverse within the House of Lords case of Pi and Graham, and in particular you have been asked to look at the judgment of Lord Brown Wilkinson who lays down the tests. So let's take the meaning of possession to begin with. Now, as I'm sure you've gathered, the concept of possession actually has two key elements. First of all, the squatter must show that he is in factual possession of the land. Now this entails showing that he has a sufficient degree of factual control of the property. He needs to be in exclusive control of the property. And secondly, the squatter must demonstrate that he has an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of other people. Now it's not enough to show you're in possession to show that you've either got factual possession or the intention to possess. You must show both. So for example, I could sit here intending to possess Buckingham Palace, but that's not enough. I can't possess by intention alone. I must also be in factual exclusive control of the property as well. Now as you know, in the case of Pi and Graham, the Graham's the squatters they won and they became the owners of a very valuable plot of development band in rural Berkshire. How did the Graham's managed to show that they possessed the property? Well, let's consider factual possession to begin with. The House of Lords decided that they were indeed in factual possession for a number of reasons. They farmed the land extensively as if it was their own. They used it in exactly the same way that they used their other fields. We're told they spread dung on the land. They grazed their animals on the land. They used the land so extensively that even their own employees believed that the Graham's the squatters were actually the owners of those fields. Furthermore, and this was really important if you look at the House of Lords judgment. The Graham's had physically planted hedges and fences around the land so that they were physically excluding other people from getting onto the land. So that was the factual possession that the Graham's managed to show. The House of Lords also decided that the Graham's had demonstrated a sufficient intention to possess the land because they intended to use the land as if it was their own. Now, if you look very carefully at the judgment, you will see that the pie company's barrister argued that the Graham's would have been willing to pay to use the land if they had been asked to do so by the pie company. And the barrister said that that meant that the Graham's didn't have an intention to possess the property because they would have been willing to pay for using the land if they'd been asked. But the House of Lords very clearly said that that is irrelevant. You can be in possession of property, intending to exclude people for the time being, even though you would be willing to pay to be there if asked by the real owner. So that's the meaning of possession. Now let's think about what adverse means. Now this bears a very straightforward meaning. If you look at the House of Lords judgment, it essentially means that in order to be in adverse possession, the Scotter must be in possession of somebody else's land without the real owner's consent. So if you go on to my property, if you go into possession without my consent, you are in adverse possession. If you're there for 12 years, I run the risk of losing my ownership to you. So what can I do about it? What can I do to stop you becoming the owner when I could do one of two things? I could either evict you from the land so that you're no longer in possession or I could give you permission to be there because once you have permission to be on the land, no longer are you in adverse possession. You are there with my consent and you are not an adverse possessor. Now if you look carefully at the Pi and Graham judgment, you'll see that the Pi company tried to argue that adverse bore an extra meaning. It meant more than that the Scotter must be there without the owner's consent. They argued that the Scotter must establish that the Scotter's possession was inconsistent with the real owner's future plans of the land. Now if you remember from the Pi case, the Pi company had plans to develop the land in the future. So the Pi company argued that actually the Graham's farming of the land was not inconsistent with the Pi company's future development plans and therefore the Pi company argued the Scotters weren't in adverse possession. Now the House of Lords said this isn't what adverse means. Adverse does not mean you need to be there inconsistently with the owner's right. Instead, it merely means you must be there without the owner's permission. So what did this mean for the Pi and Graham case? When did our Scotters go into adverse possession? Well, the answer is that they went into adverse possession on the day their permission to be on the land ran out. Their permission to be on the land ran out at the end of August 1984 when the grazing agreement expired. From that date onwards, from the 1st of September 1984 onwards, the Graham's were in adverse possession and that meant that 12 years later in September 1996 the Graham's became the owner of that highly valuable plot. So that's the result and those are the reasons for the result in the Pi and Graham case. You need to have a think about whether you like that result. Is the law of adverse possession too generous? Would you do anything to change the law?