Cantwell & Ors v D Minney
[2023] EWHC 1546 (KB)
Bernard Healey v William Fraine (senior) & Ors
19 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 549
Court of Appeal
A family living in a house they didn't own tried to claim it was theirs. They tried to change their legal argument, but the judge said their new argument was self-contradictory and wouldn't work. The judge said they should focus on a different, more likely way to win.
Key Facts
- •Michelle Healey (deceased, represented by her husband Bernard Healey) was the registered freehold proprietor of a house.
- •The Fraine family (William Fraine senior, two sons, and a partner) occupied the house without permission.
- •The Fraines initially claimed adverse possession and an equitable interest under TOLATA.
- •The Fraines sought to amend their defence to rely primarily on proprietary estoppel.
- •The proposed amendment was deemed internally contradictory by the Judge, as it included both adverse possession and licensee claims.
Legal Principles
Adverse possession of registered land under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) does not operate as a defence to possession unless specific narrow circumstances are met.
LRA 2002
A pleading should not be internally contradictory; a party may plead alternative cases, but not contradictory assertions within the same case.
Practice Direction 16, para 9.2; Civil Procedure Rules
One cannot be in adverse possession of a property if one occupies it under a licence.
Case law precedent; established principle of adverse possession
Proprietary estoppel may arise where a person acts to their detriment in reliance on an understanding regarding land ownership.
Case law precedent; equitable principle
The court has discretion to allow amendments to pleadings, but should not permit amendments that are bound to fail as a matter of law.
Civil Procedure Rules
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Fraines' appeal.
The proposed amendment was internally contradictory, pleading both adverse possession and a licensee status, which are legally incompatible. The adverse possession claim was misconceived in law and not a viable defence under the LRA 2002. The court refused permission for the amendment in its entirety due to the internal contradictions and failure to adequately address the issues.