Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Adverse Possession; Incompatible with the European Convention for Human Rights?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper discusses the statement “Whilst in theory the law of adverse possession fulfils many useful purposes, the practical effect of the law is to breach the European Convention on Human Rights”. The bibliography cites 4 sources. The paper is written with reference to English law.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEECHRadverse.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the concept of adverse possession may clash with the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR). This is where one individual has possession of a property under any title, and another
claims to be the "rightful owner under a different title, the possession of the former is said to be under adverse possession" (Ivamy, 2000;10). If the original owner does not
assert their ownership, they may be barred form this in the future. Under the Limitation Act where a rightful owner failed to assert their claim, usually within twelve years, ownership
passes, this is seen in cases such as Buckinghamshire CC v. Moran [1990] Ch 623 (Gravells, 2003). The barring of the title owner to take any a specified period of
time to evict the occupant of the land means that they are then denied any way of asserting their title over the land. This means for the occupant of
the land that they have a possession that "becomes impregnable, giving him a title that is superior to all others" (Nourse LJ in Buckinghamshire CC v. Moran) (Gravells, 2003).
In effect it was assumed that where the scenario for adverse possession arose the title owner had abandoned or dispossessed the land. This was
seen as legalising the theft of land where an owner did not exercise their rights. Prior to the 1980 Act the law was
also seen as biased towards those who make claims under adverse possession, as seen with cases such as Walliss Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd v Shell-Mex and B.P. Ltd [1975]
Q.B. 94 and Gray v Wykehyam Martin and Goode and unreported case from the 17th of January 1977 (Gravells, 2003). Although this bias was only in specific circumstances it was
...