Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:54:42.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adverse Possession of Land in Scots and English Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

D. J. Cusine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Scotland, like England, possession plays a part in landownership. In Scotland a non-owner may acquire a title to land by the operation of prescription;1 in England the title of an owner may be lost by limitation2 but an easement can be acquired by prescription,3 as can a servitude in Scotland.4 Because the acquisition of ownership in Scots law is by the operation of prescription, both a title and possession are necessary,5 whereas in England only possession is required. Although the theory behind and the purpose of adverse possession are different in each jurisdiction, as are the periods of possession, the result in many cases will be similar. The purpose of this article is to look at the similarities and the differences, and to consider recent cases on possession in each jurisdiction to show to what extent, if at all, one jurisdiction may learn from the other. The Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 codified the law and, although it shortened the period of prescription, cases decided under the previous law, notably those on the requisites of possession, are still relevant.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 667 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Prescription & Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (“1973 Act”), ss.1–2.

2. Limitation Act 1980 (“1980 Act”), s.15(1).

3. Prescription Act 1832. s.2; Gale on Easements (13th edn), pp.162–163.Google Scholar

4. 1973 Act.s.3.

5. The problems created in English law by the differences between adverse possession and prescription do not exist in Scots law. See Michael J. Goodman. “Adverse Possession or Prescription? Problems of Conflict” (1968) 32 Conv. & Property Lawyer 270.

6. 1973 Act, s.1.

7. Idem, s.2.

8. ibid.

9. Idem, s.1(IA).

10. S.15.

11. 1973 Act. s.1.

12. Erskine. An Institute of the Law of Scotland. Book II. Title i. Section 23.

13. McInroy v. Duke of Atholl (1891) 19 R. (HL) 46 (a claim of a servitude).

14. (1879) 5 Ex.D. 264, 273 (per Bramwell LJ).

15. Mount Carmel Investments Ltd v. Peter Thurlow Ltd [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1078.

16. 1973 Act. s.15(1).

17. [1969]1 W.L.R. 23.

18. [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1241.

19. [1982] 1 W.L.R. 560.

20. Powell v. McFarlane (1977) 38 P. & C.R. 452.

21. 1912 S.C. 458.

22. 1911 S.C. 134.

23. [1958] 1 Q.B. 159.

24. [1967] Ch. 487.

25. See e.g. George Wimpey & Co. Ltd v. Sohn [1967] Ch. 487. 511 (per Russell LJ). but the case itself illustrates the fact that enclosure is not conclusive in every instance. See also Williams Brothers Direct Supply Ltd v. Raftery [1958] 1 Q.B. 159.170 (per Hodson LJ).

26. Seldon v. Smith (1877) L.T. 168, 169 (per Cockburn CJ).

27. Powell v. McFarlane. supra n.20. at p.470 (per Slade LJ).Google Scholar

28. [1990] Ch. 623.

29. [1975] A.C. 464.

30. (1879) 6 R. (HL) 72, 85; 4 App. Cas. 770, 779.

31. (1882) 9 R. 1219.

32. Gordon. Scottish Land Law. para.7–02.

33. 1983 S.L.T. 675.

34. E.g. Young v. North British Railway Co. (1887) 14 R. (HL) 53: Lock v. Taylor 1976 S.L.T. 238.

35. 1994 S.L.T. 212; 793.

36. Idem, p.800.

37. Idem. p.801.

38. Idem, p.802.

39. Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874. s.34.

40. 1973 Act. s.1.

41. 1980 Act. s.15.

42. 21 Jac. 1 c. 16. s.1(3) re-enacted in Real Property Limitation Act 1832. s.2.

43. 1973 Act s.3; Bryant v. Foot (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 161, 179 (per Cockburn CJ).

44. 1973 Act. s. 1(4).

45. 1980 Act. Sch.1, para.11.

46. 1980 Act. Sch.1, para.10.

47. 1973 Act. s.4.

48. 1980 Act. s.15.

49. Idem, s.36(1).

50. Erskine, op. cit. supra n.12. Book III, Title vii. Section 42.

51. [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1078.

52. 1980 Act, Sch. 1, para. 8(2).

53. Troup v. Aberdeen Heritable Securities Co. Ltd 1916 S.C. 918.

54. 1980 Act.ss.28, 32.

55. Idem, s.28.

56. Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874. s.34.

57. Prescription and Limitation of Actions. Memorandum No.9(1), Prescription and Limitation of Actions. Scot. Law Com. No.15 (1970).

58. 1973 Act.s.1A.

59. Which include the Register of Sasines and the Land Register.

60. Tichbourne v. Weir (1892) 67 L.T. 735.

61. Megarry. Manual of Real Property (6th edn). p.528.Google Scholar

62. [1963] A.C. 510.

63. Idem. p.544.