When disagreements arise between neighbours about the ownership of land, it is invariably best to try to reach an amicable solution rather than engage in litigation. In an unusual case concerning the ownership of a driveway, the Upper Tribunal (UT) concluded that neither party was entitled to be registered as its owner.
The driveway served two properties owned by a couple. An area including their neighbours’ property and the land where the driveway was situated had once been owned by the trustees of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, since when the layout of the area had changed significantly. A conveyance of the neighbours’ property in 1960 was initially believed to be lost, and the driveway was not included when title to the property was registered in 1995.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the neighbours were entitled to be registered as owners of the driveway, concluding that it had been included in the 1960 conveyance and had erroneously been omitted when title to their property was registered. The FTT rejected the couple’s claim that they were entitled to be registered as owners of the driveway on the basis of adverse possession, finding that neither factual possession nor an intention to possess the driveway had been established. The couple appealed to the UT.
Upholding the couple’s claim that the FTT had been wrong to hold that the neighbours had established title to the driveway, the UT noted that appeals in a land registration case can be brought on questions of fact, by virtue of Section 111 of the Land Registration Act 2002. In the UT’s judgment, this was a case where it was compelled to interfere. The case had proceeded before the FTT on the fundamental misapprehension that the Land Registry had not had the 1960 conveyance when title to the neighbours’ property was registered. Once it was appreciated that it had in fact had the conveyance, it was apparent that the FTT’s finding as to the conveyance’s terms was wrong. The right inference to be drawn was that the conveyance did not include the driveway.
However, the conclusion that the previous owner of the couple’s properties had not been in possession of the driveway was upheld. The UT rejected the argument that the FTT had failed to take into account the topography, in particular the wall separating the driveway from the neighbours’ garden. The FTT had clearly had the right wider principles in view, and its assessment was well open to it on the evidence.
Having found that both the couple’s and the neighbours’ applications to be registered as owners of the driveway failed, the UT observed that it seemed that the driveway was still owned by the Oddfellows Trustees.
