Lambeth v Bigden & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns appeals by occupiers of flats in a housing complex known as Oval Mansions, located near a cricket ground in a major city. The occupiers appealed against possession orders made by a county court judge in favour of the local borough council, which owns the freehold title to the properties. The council sought possession after issuing summonses in 1997, following prolonged rent-free occupation by various squatters since the early 1980s. The occupiers contended that the council's possession claims were statute barred due to adverse possession, asserting that they had acquired title either collectively over entire blocks or individually over flats. The council denied these claims, arguing continuous possession and that its title had been acknowledged in writing, thereby restarting the limitation period.

The appeals focus on possession orders relating to certain blocks and flats within Oval Mansions, with some blocks and flats excluded from the initial orders. The council cross-appealed against the refusal to grant possession for those excluded units and challenged the judge’s rulings that adverse possession had been established in those cases.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the council’s possession proceedings were statute barred due to adverse possession by the occupiers.
2. Whether the occupiers acquired title by adverse possession of the blocks or individual flats, including the common parts.
3. Whether the council’s title was acknowledged in writing by the occupiers or their agents, thereby interrupting the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980.
4. Whether joint or collective adverse possession by a fluctuating community of squatters could extinguish the council’s title to entire blocks.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The council’s right to possession was statute barred as the limitation period had expired due to continuous adverse possession since the mid-1980s.
• The occupiers had acquired title by adverse possession not only of individual flats but also collectively of entire blocks, including common parts such as hallways and staircases.
• The locking of street doors by occupiers excluded the council from the blocks, amounting to dispossession and joint possession by the community of squatters.
• The council’s title had not been acknowledged in writing in a manner sufficient to restart the limitation period.

Respondent's Arguments

• The council contested the existence of continuous actual adverse possession and requisite intention to possess by the occupiers.
• The council asserted that its title had been acknowledged in writing by or on behalf of the occupiers, thus interrupting the limitation period under sections 29 to 31 of the Limitation Act 1980.
• The council challenged the legal basis for collective or joint adverse possession of entire blocks by a fluctuating group of squatters.
• The council cross-appealed against the judge’s refusal to grant possession for certain flats and blocks where adverse possession was found.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the factual findings of the judge below regarding possession and intention to possess. It upheld the conclusion that the occupiers failed to establish adverse possession of individual flats or joint adverse possession of entire blocks, particularly noting the absence of physical occupation or control over common parts such as hallways and staircases. The court emphasized that the mere locking of street doors by occupiers did not equate to dispossession of the council for the whole block, nor did it establish a communal adverse possession by a fluctuating group.

Turning to the issue of acknowledgment under the Limitation Act 1980, the court disagreed with the judge’s assessment that the petition presented to the council in 1989 was not an acknowledgment of title. The court held that the petition clearly acknowledged the council’s superior title by implicitly recognizing the council’s right to sell the property, merely petitioning against a particular sale. This constituted a written acknowledgment sufficient to restart the limitation period.

The court further found that other documents, including letters from the housing co-operative and its agents, could also be regarded as acknowledgments given the context and agency relationships, contrary to the judge’s findings. The court stressed the importance of written acknowledgment to avoid litigation and uncertainty and rejected the restrictive interpretation of agency applied below.

Due to the dispositive nature of the acknowledgment issue, the court did not consider it necessary to decide other points raised, including the detailed arguments on joint adverse possession.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to dismiss the appeals by the occupiers and allow the cross appeals by the council. This means the possession orders in favour of the council stand, including for the flats and blocks previously excepted by the judge.

The direct effect is that the council retains possession rights and the occupiers’ claims to title by adverse possession are rejected based on the written acknowledgments restarting the limitation period. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond confirming the application of established principles on acknowledgment and adverse possession in the context of communal occupation by squatters. The court also highlighted the procedural benefit of resolving acknowledgment as a preliminary issue to save time and public expense in complex adverse possession disputes.