Category: Property law

How Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) Shaped Native Title Law

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) was the first major Australian case testing Indigenous land rights. It is commonly called the Gove land rights case.

Case Name & Citation: Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141

  • Court: Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Australia)
  • The Learned Judge: Blackburn J (Justice Richard Blackburn)
  • Date of Decision: 27 April 1971
  • Area of Law: Native Title / Aboriginal Land Rights, Property Law

What happened in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd?

A group of Yolngu (Aboriginal) people from the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory of Australia took the mining company Nabalco (and the government) to court.

The Commonwealth Government granted a 42-year mineral lease to Nabalco Pty Ltd over parts of the land occupied by the Yolngu without their consultation.

The Yolngu brought an action in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory seeking a declaration that they held a communal native title and could prevent the mining.

They wanted the court to recognise their traditional rights to the land and to stop bauxite mining there.

Key Issue

Whether the Yolngu peoples’ traditional rights to land were recognised in Australian common law.

Court’s Decision in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and decided on 27 April 1971 by Justice Blackburn.

He rejected the Yolngu’s claim that Australian common law recognised their communal native title.

Even if such rights might have existed, they had been extinguished by the mining lease/Mining Ordinance or laws.

Although he accepted that Yolngu had a complex, structured system of law and a strong spiritual and economic connection to the land, the judge said the common law at that time did not recognise those rights as proprietary land title.

Blackburn J held the rights were not proprietary because the Yolngu system expressed spiritual and kinship obligations to land, rather than exclusive, alienable, enforceable ownership rights of the kind recognised by the common law. The nature of the Yolngu relationship to land was based on ancestral identity, ritual responsibility, and spiritual obligation, not ownership.

Why this case matters?

It was the first major Australian court case about Aboriginal land rights and native title. That made it a landmark even though the Yolngu lost.

Although the decision went against the claimants, it acknowledged the existence of traditional law and custom and thus helped pave the way for later developments in Indigenous land rights.

This case helped shape political change and law reform (for example, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976) and eventually influenced later court decisions about native title (like Mabo).

The case’s position was overturned by the Mabo v Queensland (No 2) decision in 1992, which recognised native title in Australian law and rejected the idea that Australia was terra nullius.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights
Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916]: Case Summary

The case King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd [1916] deals with the distinction between a license and an interest in land, holding that a license is only a personal right and does not bind third parties.

Case Name: King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

  • Court: House of Lords (UK), 1916
  • Citation: [1916] 2 AC 54; [1916] UKHL 1
  • Date: 14 February 1916
  • Judges (Law Lords): Lord Buckmaster (Lord Chancellor), Earl Loreburn and Lord Atkinson
  • Area of Law: Property Law, Proprietary Rights vs Contractual Rights

Facts of the Case (King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd)

Mr. King owned land where a picture palace (cinema) was going to be built.

Before the cinema was built, he made a contract with David Allen & Sons (a billposting/advertising company). In this contract, King gave them permission to put posters on one wall of the cinema for 4 years, in return for payment.

Later, King leased the land and building to a cinema company, but this lease did not mention David Allen & Sons’ advertising right.

The cinema company refused to allow David Allen & Sons to put up posters.

So, David Allen & Sons could not use the wall, even though they had an agreement with King.

Legal Issue

Did the contract give David Allen & Sons an actual interest in land (like a lease or easement) that would bind the new tenant?

Decision in King v David Allen & Sons Billposting Ltd

The Court held that the contract was only a license — a personal/contractual right, not a proprietary right. It did not create a lease or easement (no legal interest in the wall).

So, it did not bind the new cinema company.

However, King had promised to give the advertising space. By leasing the property without protecting that right, he made it impossible for the poster company to use the wall.

Therefore, King breached the contract. He had to pay damages to David Allen & Sons.

Key Principle (What the Case Is Known For)

A license is only a personal right. It does not create an interest in land and does not bind future owners or tenants. If the licensor later makes it impossible to honour the license, this amounts to a breach of contract, for which the licensor is personally liable in damages.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/1916/1.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights
What Armory v Delamirie 1722 Tells Us About Finder’s Rights?

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Bridges v Hawkesworth: Lost Property and Finder’s Rights

Given below is a summary of the Queen’s Bench decision in Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851), one of the leading English cases on the law of finders of lost property.

Bridges v Hawkesworth (1851) 21 LJQB 75; [1843-60] All ER Rep 122
Court: Court of Queen’s Bench
Judges: Patteson J and Wightman J
Date: 19 June 1851
Legal Focus: Property Law – Finders of lost property – Rights of finder vs occupier of premises

Facts: Bridges v Hawkesworth

In October 1847, the plaintiff (Bridges), a travelling salesman, visited the defendant’s (Hawkesworth’s) shop. While leaving, he noticed a parcel lying on the floor inside the shop. It contained banknotes worth £65.

Bridges showed the parcel to a shopman and requested the defendant to keep it until the true owner appeared.

The defendant advertised the discovery, but no one came forward for three years.

Bridges then asked for the return of the notes, offering to pay advertising costs and indemnify the defendant.

The defendant refused, claiming ownership of the notes.

The County Court judge found for the defendant.

Issue

Who had the superior right to the lost banknotes?

Judgment in Bridges v Hawkesworth

Finder’s rights prevail.

The fact that the notes were found inside the shop did not remove the case from the general rule that: “The finder of a lost item acquires a valid title against all except the true owner.” Armory v Delamirie (1722) was cited.

Bridges never intended to abandon his claim when he gave the notes to the shopkeeper.

The defendant acted merely as agent of the finder in advertising and safeguarding the notes. As the true owner was never located, Bridges’ title was paramount.

Judgment of the County Court was reversed.

Legal Principle

The place where a lost item is found does not alter the general rule: the finder acquires rights against everyone except the true owner, unless the premises’ occupier had prior possession or control over the item.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne (2007): Property Rights
Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

What Armory v Delamirie 1722 Tells Us About Finder’s Rights?

Armory v Delamirie [1722] is a seminal English case that holds that—if you find something lost, you can keep it against everyone except the real owner, and the person who wrongs you is responsible.

­Case Citation: Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC KB J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664

  • Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)
  • Date: 31 July 1722
  • Judge: Pratt C.J.
  • Legal Focus: Property law, Law of finders, Employer liability, Trover (tort)

Facts: Armory v Delamirie

A chimney sweep boy (the plaintiff) found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith’s shop (the defendant) to determine its value.

The goldsmith’s apprentice removed the stones from the jewel under the pretext of weighing it, then offered the boy a few pennies for it.

The boy refused and asked for the jewel back.

The apprentice returned only the socket, without the stones.

Legal Issues

Can the finder of a lost item maintain an action for trover (claim for conversion of personal property)?

Is the master responsible for the actions of his apprentice?

How should the value of the jewel be determined if it is not returned?

Court’s Decision in Armory v Delamirie

Finder’s rights: The finder of a jewel does not gain full ownership, but has sufficient rights to keep it against everyone except the true owner. Thus, the finder can maintain a trover action.

Liability of the master: The master is liable for the actions of his apprentice.

Value of the jewel: Since the jewel was not returned, the jury was instructed to presume it was of the highest quality and assess damages accordingly.

Significance

The case establishes the principle that a finder has rights against all except the true owner. It also confirms that an employer (master) is responsible for the acts of employees (apprentices) done in the course of their work. It further provides guidance on calculating damages when stolen or withheld property is not returned.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1722/J94.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia
Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne (2007): Property Rights

Given below is a clear and simple summary of the case Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 311.

Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 311; (2007) 20 VR 311

  • Court: Supreme Court of Victoria – Court of Appeal
  • Judgment Date: 21st December, 2007
  • Judges: ASHLEY and DODDS-STREETON JJA and CAVANOUGH AJA
  • Legal Focus: Trespass to land, Encroachment into airspace, Damages or Injunction, Property Law

Background: Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne

Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd (the appellant) owned a 12-storey office building.

PCH Melbourne Pty Ltd (the respondent) owned the neighbouring property, which included the heritage-listed MCG Hotel and vacant land for development. In the future, PCH wanted to build a multistorey building up to the edge of its land.

Break Fast had added metal cladding to its building, which protruded 3–6 cm into PCH’s airspace.

PCH argued this was a trespass and sought removal. Break Fast argued it was minor (“trifling”), and damages should be paid instead of a mandatory injunction.

Trial Court Decision

The trial judge found that the cladding did encroach into PCH’s airspace and this was not trivial.

Since the encroachment interfered with PCH’s future potential to build up to the boundary, it was a serious trespass.

It granted a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the cladding.

Appeal Arguments by Break Fast

Break Fast argued the trespass was small and trivial.

Damages should replace the injunction.

Removal would cost about $300,000, causing hardship.

They also offered undertakings to remove cladding if ever PCH developed its land.

Court of Appeal’s Findings (Break Fast Investments v PCH Melbourne)

Trespass was confirmed – even small intrusions into airspace can be trespass if they interfere with the ordinary use of land.

It was not trivial – the cladding prevented PCH from fully using its land for future development.

Damages were not appropriate – allowing damages would mean Break Fast effectively “buys” rights over PCH’s land without consent.

Hardship ($300k cost) did not outweigh PCH’s rights.

The Court applied the “good working rule” from Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co.—injunctions are the prima facie remedy for trespass, and damages are awarded only in exceptional cases. For example, if the trespass is trivial, easily compensable in money, and an injunction would be oppressive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the mandatory injunction requiring Break Fast to remove the cladding.

Key Legal Principle

Even a small building intrusion (just a few centimeters) into a neighbor’s airspace can be trespass. Courts usually order removal (injunction) rather than just awarding damages, because property rights are strongly protected.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2007/311.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence
Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Perry v Clissold (1906): Property Disputes in Australia

Perry v Clissold deals with whether a person in exclusive possession of land, though not the paper owner, is entitled to compensation when the Crown resumes the land for public purposes.

Court: Privy Council (Appeal from the High Court of Australia)
Citation: (1906) 4 CLR 374; [1907] AC 73
Original Case: Clissold v Perry, [1904] HCA 12; (1904) 1 CLR 363
Privy Council Decision: 1906
High Court Decision: 20 June 1904
Legal Focus: Property Law – Possession vs. Ownership, Right to Compensation for Resumed Land

Facts of the Case: Perry v Clissold

The Crown (government) wanted to acquire some land for a public school under the Lands for Public Purposes Acquisition Act 1880 (NSW), which later became part of the Public Works Act 1900.

Frederick Clissold was in exclusive possession of the land. He had fenced it, rented it out, paid taxes, and acted like the owner, though the actual owner was unknown.

The government resumed (took over) the land and initially refused compensation to Clissold’s executors after his death, claiming Clissold had only a “possessory title” (not true ownership).

The Supreme Court of NSW sided with the Minister, denying compensation.

The High Court of Australia reversed that, saying Clissold’s possession created a prima facie case for compensation.

Legal Issue

Whether a person in exclusive possession of land (even if not the true owner) is entitled to compensation when the government resumes it for public purposes.

Decision in Perry v Clissold

Privy Council upheld the High Court decision, dismissing the appeal.

1. A person in peaceful possession as owner has rights against everyone except the true owner.

2. If the true owner never claims the land, the possessor’s title eventually becomes absolute.

3. The Act intended compensation for anyone deprived of land, even if the true owner is unknown.

4. The land’s valuation should be done as of the date of government notification.

Lord Macnaghten said as under:

“It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”

Outcome:

The claimants (Clissold’s executors) were entitled to a valuation of the land and could claim compensation. The government could not deny compensation just because Clissold was not the true owner.

Right to Compensation

Even if someone doesn’t legally own land but has been living on it and acting as the owner, the government must pay compensation if it takes the land for public use. The fact that the real owner is unknown doesn’t stop this.

List of References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law
Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway (1856): Jus Tertii Defence

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway Co (1856) is about whether a person in possession of goods can sue for conversion against a wrongdoer, even if a third party might have a better title.

Jeffries v The Great Western Railway Co (1856) 5 El & Bl 802; 119 ER 680

  • Court: Court of Queen’s Bench (with consideration in Exchequer Chamber)
  • Areas of Law: Trover (conversion of goods), Property and possession, Jus tertii defence (third-party rights)

Key Facts: Jeffries v The Great Western Railway

The plaintiff, Jeffries claimed ownership of certain trucks under an assignment from Owen and was in actual possession. The defendants, Great Western Railway also claimed the trucks under a later assignment from Owen and seized them.

The defendants argued the plaintiff’s assignment was fraudulent (and that Owen’s assignees or the trustee in bankruptcy had the better right). They argued that Owen had become bankrupt before Jeffries took possession, so the goods vested in Owen’s bankruptcy assignees, and therefore Jeffries had no title.

Issue

Can a defendant who seizes goods from the person in possession avoid liability in trover by proving that a third party (e.g. a trustee in bankruptcy) actually had title (i.e. raise a jus tertii defence)?

Judgment in Jeffries v The Great Western Railway

The court held for Jeffries. The leading principle (Lord Campbell CJ) is that “a person possessed of goods as his property has a good title as against every stranger” — so a possessor in actual possession can recover against a wrongful taker; a wrongdoer cannot simply defeat the claim by pointing to the superior third-party title (jus tertii) unless the defendant can show he is claiming under that third party (e.g., acting for the assignees). The defendants were not claiming under the bankruptcy assignees, so they could not set up the assignees’ title as a defence. The judge was right to exclude the jus tertii defence in the facts of this case.

Legal Significance

This case is frequently cited in contexts about finders/possessors, conversion, and limits on the jus tertii defence.

It establishes the important practical rule in personal-property law: possession creates a sufficiently good title against wrongdoers — the possessor’s remedy is against the immediate wrongdoer, not against a hypothetical superior owner.

List of References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 is a leading English case on remedies for breach of restrictive covenants. Here’s a summary of the case.

Case Name: Jaggard v Sawyer and Another
Citations: [1995] 2 All ER 189; [1995] 1 WLR 269; [1995] 1 EGLR 146; [1995] 13 EG 132; [1994] EGCS 139; [1994] EWCA Civ 1
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
Judges: Sir Thomas Bingham MR (Master of the Rolls), Kennedy LJ, Millett LJ
Date: 18 July 1994
Areas of Law: Property Law, Restrictive Covenants, Trespass, Injunctions vs. Damages

Facts of the Case: Jaggard v Sawyer

Ashleigh Avenue in Dorset was a private cul-de-sac developed with 10 houses, subject to restrictive covenants binding all owners.

Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer (defendants) owned No. 5 and wanted a larger home. They bought land behind their property (from 13 Bull Lane) to build a new house (No. 5A). They created a driveway through their existing garden to give No. 5A access to Ashleigh Avenue.

Mrs. Jaggard (plaintiff), owner of No. 1, objected, arguing that the driveway breached covenants. The use of Ashleigh Avenue by No. 5A was trespass (since the road was private).

Despite objections, the Sawyers built No. 5A. By the time proceedings were brought, the house was nearly complete.

County Court Decision

The trial judge held Ashleigh Avenue was indeed private. The Sawyers’ use of it was trespass and breach of covenant. But instead of granting an injunction (which would effectively make No. 5A landlocked), the judge awarded damages in lieu under s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981.

Damages were assessed at what a reasonable sum would have been for release of the right of way: £6,250 (split among residents).

Mrs. Jaggard appealed, insisting an injunction should have been granted.

Court of Appeal Decision (Jaggard v Sawyer)

The appeal was dismissed.

Normally, a person whose property rights are infringed is entitled to an injunction.

However, following Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895], damages may be substituted if the injury is small, measurable in money, can be adequately compensated by money, and an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant.

The Court of Appeal held all four conditions were satisfied here. Extra traffic from one additional house was minimal. Mrs. Jaggard’s concerns could be addressed with money. An injunction would have been oppressive, since it would render No. 5A useless and destroy the Sawyers’ home.

Outcome:

Mrs. Jaggard’s appeal was dismissed. The Sawyers kept access to No. 5A via Ashleigh Avenue, but had to pay damages.

Key Principles Applied in this Case

Courts have discretion (under Lord Cairns’ Act and s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981) to award damages instead of injunctions, especially where an injunction would be disproportionate.

Shelfer test provides a framework for when damages should replace injunctions.

Courts will consider the reality at the time of trial—if a building is already complete, courts are reluctant to order remedies that destroy it.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/1.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990]: Legal Case Note

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:

Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo [2009]: Adverse Possession
Rodrigues v Ufton (1894): Trespass, Possession & Landlord Rights

MORE FROM RELATED LAWS:

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30: Legal Note

Here’s a clear summary of the case J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2002] UKHL 30. It is a leading House of Lords decision on adverse possession.

Citation: [2002] 3 All ER 865, [2003] 1 AC 419, [2002] 2 P & CR DG22, [2002] NPC 92, [2003] 1 P & CR 10, [2002] HRLR 34, [2002] UKHL 30, [2002] 3 WLR 221, [2002] 28 EGCS 129

  • Court: House of Lords (now UK Supreme Court)
  • Date: 4 July 2002
  • Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton

Key Facts: J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham

Pye owned land near Henwick, Berkshire, intended for future development.

The Grahams (farmers) had grazing agreements with Pye until 1983.

After the final agreement expired in August 1984, Pye refused further licences but the Grahams continued to use the land for grazing, farming, and maintenance without permission.

They farmed the land as if it were their own for over 12 years, while Pye took no active steps to recover possession.

Legal Issue

The key question was: Had the Grahams acquired ownership of the land by adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980?

Court Decisions [J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham]

The High Court (Neuberger J) ruled in favour of the Grahams. Their continuous farming showed both factual possession and intention to possess.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. It found that Grahams lacked the necessary intention since they were willing to pay and initially hoped for further agreements.

The House of Lords restored the High Court’s decision, confirming Grahams had acquired title by adverse possession.

Reasoning of the House of Lords

Possession requires: (1) factual possession and (2) intention to possess (animus possidendi).

Grahams had factual possession: they farmed, fenced, grazed cattle, spread manure, and excluded others (including Pye). They treated the land as their own, excluding Pye. Their willingness to pay for a licence if asked did not negate intention to possess.

By September 1984 they were occupying without permission, which amounted to dispossession of Pye. After 12 years, under the Limitation Act, Pye lost its right to recover the land.

The House of Lords allowed the Grahams’ appeal and confirmed that they had acquired title to the land by adverse possession.

Legal Significance

The case illustrates how adverse possession can transfer ownership of land where the true owner fails to act within 12 years.

It raised concerns about fairness, since the Grahams gained valuable land without compensation to Pye.

The judgment influenced reforms in the Land Registration Act 2002, which introduced stricter rules to protect registered landowners.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/30.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Rodrigues v Ufton (1894): Trespass, Possession & Landlord Rights
Elazac Pty Ltd v Shirreff [2011]: Workplace Injury

MORE FROM OTHER LAWS: