J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham 
CASE NOTE: JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD V UK1
For many years, there has been a certain ethical discomfort with the doctrine of adverse possession. Recently, this, this criticism has culminated in accusationsthataccusations that the law in this area violates the human rights of land owners.2 Over the next few pages I examine the case of JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD v UK. . I believe that the judgment in this case should be welcomed as it may help to clarifyclarifies the law in Ireland in this area. 3
I. THE FACTS AND THE DECISIONAL HISTORY
The applicants were the registered owners of agricultural land. in Berkshire. The neighbours occupied this piece of land, initially under a grazing agreement and subsequently without the applicants’ permission for a period of circa fifteen years. The neighbours registered cautions at the Land Registry against the applicants’ title on the grounds of that they had obtained title by adverse possession. The applicants then commenced proceedings seeking cancellation of the cautions and possession of the land. The neighbours argued that after 12 years the applicants were barred from raising an action to recover as a result of s 15 of the Limitation Act 1980. The neighbours also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which held that when the 12 year period expired the applicants were to hold the land in trust for the neighbours.
At first instance, the High Court held in favour of the neighbours. . This decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal, and then reversed again by the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in its judgment, accepted that the Human Rights Act 1998 could not be relied upon because the events pre-dated the commencement of the Act.
The case was brought to the European Court on Human Rights, which held that the applicants’ rights under Article 1, Protocol 1,(, DO I HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO SAY WHAT ARTICLE SAYS (maybe say here what this article says?)had had been violated. The case was then brought to the Grand
For many years, there has been a certain ethical discomfort with the doctrine of adverse possession. Recently, this, this criticism has culminated in accusationsthataccusations that the law in this area violates the human rights of land owners.2 Over the next few pages I examine the case of JA PYE (OXFORD) LTD v UK. . I believe that the judgment in this case should be welcomed as it may help to clarifyclarifies the law in Ireland in this area. 3
I. THE FACTS AND THE DECISIONAL HISTORY
The applicants were the registered owners of agricultural land. in Berkshire. The neighbours occupied this piece of land, initially under a grazing agreement and subsequently without the applicants’ permission for a period of circa fifteen years. The neighbours registered cautions at the Land Registry against the applicants’ title on the grounds of that they had obtained title by adverse possession. The applicants then commenced proceedings seeking cancellation of the cautions and possession of the land. The neighbours argued that after 12 years the applicants were barred from raising an action to recover as a result of s 15 of the Limitation Act 1980. The neighbours also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925, which held that when the 12 year period expired the applicants were to hold the land in trust for the neighbours.
At first instance, the High Court held in favour of the neighbours. . This decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal, and then reversed again by the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in its judgment, accepted that the Human Rights Act 1998 could not be relied upon because the events pre-dated the commencement of the Act.
The case was brought to the European Court on Human Rights, which held that the applicants’ rights under Article 1, Protocol 1,(, DO I HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO SAY WHAT ARTICLE SAYS (maybe say here what this article says?)had had been violated. The case was then brought to the Grand