Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] is about whether Mr. Moran, who used and enclosed council-owned land for over 12 years, had acquired ownership through adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980.
| Case Name: Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran |
| Citations: [1989] EWCA Civ 11; [1989] 2 All ER 225; [1990] Ch 623 |
| Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division); England and Wales |
| Date of Judgment: 13 February 1989 |
| Judges: Lord Justice Slade, Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss |
| Area of Law: Land Law, Adverse Possession |
Case Background: Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran
In 1955, Buckinghamshire County Council bought a plot of land in Amersham for a future road project.
The road was never built, and the land remained unused.
Over time, neighbours began maintaining and using the land as if it was part of their gardens.
In 1971, Mr. Moran bought a nearby property (Dolphin Place) and continued using the plot, fencing it off, locking the gate, and maintaining it as part of his garden.
Legal Issue
The Council still had the official ownership (“paper title”) but did not use the land. Moran argued he had gained ownership through adverse possession — meaning he had possessed and treated the land as his own for over 12 years without permission.
The Council sued Moran in 1985 to get the land back.
Court’s Decision in Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran
The court found Moran had factual possession: he fenced, locked, maintained, and treated the land as his own.
He also had the necessary intention to possess (animus possidendi), meaning he meant to control the land exclusively, even against the Council, until such time as the road might be built.
Since he had done this for more than 12 years, the Council’s title was extinguished under the Limitation Act 1980.
The Council’s appeal failed. The Court of Appeal confirmed Moran had acquired the land by adverse possession.
Key Point of Law
1. This case clarified that for adverse possession, what matters is the squatter’s intention to possess, not the landowner’s future plans for the land.
2. Mere ownership on paper is not enough — if the owner doesn’t act for 12 years while someone else takes control, they can lose their rights.
References:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1989/11.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM RELATED LAWS:
- Alexander Gregg v Tasmanian Trustees Ltd [1997]: Mortgage Law
- Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club [1988]: Restraint of Trade
- Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011]: Verdict on Opinion Evidence
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.