Civilized Squatting |
| |
Authors: | Radley-Gardner Oliver |
| |
Institution: | * College Teaching Fellow, Pembroke College, Oxford, email: radley-gardner{at}falcon-chambers.com. |
| |
Abstract: | This article seeks to trace the origins of the requirement thata squatter must have an intention to possess (animus possidendi)in order to establish title by adverse possession. The requirementhas been confirmed by the House of Lords in the recent caseof Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham 2003] 1 AC 419. Its origins canreadily be traced back to the decision of the Court of Appealin Littledale v Liverpool College 1900] 1 Ch 19, but thereis little evidence of any need for intention before that case,and no convincing authority is cited for it. Possible explanationsfor the source of this requirement are considered by the article(for instance cases on re-entry by landlords and the so-calledfound chattel cases), but these are ultimatelyrejected. The article goes on to suggest that the reason forthis is that the intention requirement was importedinto English law from German Pandectist writers of the nineteenthcentury. It suggests that Littledale was the case in which thishappened. It seeks to support this hypothesis by reference tobiographical details of Lindley MR, who gave the leading judgmentin Littledale, and who not only trained in part in Germany butalso took an active interest in German scholarship of the time.A brief survey of the relevant German sources is undertaken,focusing primarily on the work of Savigny, but also consideringthe rival theory of Jhering. Finally, it tracks the developmentand refinement of the content of animus possidendi, first by19th century legal scholars and then by 20th century judges,to make it fit with English property law. It seeksto address the question of whether the animus possidendi requirementis a free-standing element (the strong will theory),or whether it is simply implied from the acts of the squatter(the weak will theory), and suggests a solutionby reference to the German sources and later English cases.Finally, it considers how the House of Lords decision in Pyereflects the logical culmination of the acceptance of this legaltransplant into the common law. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 Oxford 等数据库收录! |
|