[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> London Borough of Lambeth v Archangel [2000] EWCA Civ 303 (01 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/303.html Cite as: (2001) 33 HLR 44, [2000] EGCS 148, [2002] 1 P & CR 18, [2000] EWCA Civ 303

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIS HONOUR JUDGE COOKE
CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		Friday 1st December, 2000

LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY:

1. This is an appeal by Mr Michael Archangel (aka Stewart), with the permission of the judge, from an order made by HHJ Cooke in the Lambeth County Court, on the application of the Lambeth Borough Council (the Council). On 11 May 2000 he made an order for possession of a 6 bedroom house at 75 Stockwell Park Road, London, SW9 (the Property). The possession proceedings were issued on 23 September 1999. The defence of adverse possession, based on rent free occupation since mid-1985, was rejected on the ground of a written acknowledgement by him within the period of 12 years relied upon for the acquisition of a squatter's title.
2. The Council cross appeals against certain rulings in favour of Mr Archangel on his pleas of adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980.
3. As in the Oval Mansions appeal, in which a separate judgment has been given by this court today (Bigden & Ors v. Lambeth BC), this appeal at the end of the day is resolved by the construction of one document. In this instance the document is a letter written by Mr Archangel to the Council at the beginning of February 1993. This judgment should be read with the judgment in Bigden, which sets out the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning acknowledgement of title by a person in possession .

Key Events

4. The Council has been the registered proprietor of the Property since 1992, though it probably owned it from a much earlier date.
5. In about the middle of 1985 Mr Archangel, his wife Christine and their 3 children gained entrance to the Property and started to live there. Mr Archangel was described by the judge as "a remarkable and interesting man": a poet, a writer and, in a non-party sense, a political activist. His special interests are Australian aboriginal art and land issues, and the rehabilitation of young offenders.
6. In 1989 he formed an organisation called Rehab II for the purpose of rehabilitating young black ex-offenders. On 11 October 1989 it was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee and was registered as a charity. He was its unpaid chief executive. There were problems in raising funds, though there were some clients who benefited from the promotion of the objects of the charity, including living in rooms at the Property.
7. In 1990 Mr Archangel and his wife Christine parted. She went to live in Australia. In 1994 Mr Archangel went to Australia for a short period. He went to Australia again in 1995 and stayed there until October 1999 when he returned to the Property, about a month after the possession proceedings had been issued. In his absence his possessions remained in the Property and various other people with whom he remained in contact lived in the Property with his agreement.
8. The judge concluded that he did not abandon the Property in his absence; that he retained possession, in part through others, at all relevant dates; and that he retained an intention to possess. Although these conclusions on continuity of possession and intention to possess on the part of Mr Archangel are challenged by the Council in its cross appeal, which also seeks to raise a point on an implied licence to occupy, it is unnecessary to examine those aspects of the case further, as the judge decided the case in favour of the Council, correctly in my view, on the issue of acknowledgement.

The Acknowledgement Issue

9. The Council relies on an undated letter stamped as received by it from Mr Archangel on 2 February 1993. The letter is written in Mr Archangel's hand on notepaper headed

" REHAB II

75 STOCKWELL PARK ROAD LONDON SW9 0BD"

10. It is addressed to "Clovis." It is not in dispute that the addressee is Mr Clovis Reid, a grants liaison officer in the employment of the Council. The material parts of it reads as follows

"Please find enclosed enough information for you to be briefed on the happenings at Rehab II before our meeting on Tuesday. [The enclosures were not adduced in evidence.]

[After a description of the work of the charity in the community, including counselling, accommodation and training, the letter continues]

"...The project works, Clovis, and would be a huge success given the support of the people who matter. Looking forward to seeing you again, howbeit on official business.

PS We've been applying for funds vigorously in the last quarter which is to be used in refurbishing Lambeth's property. The funding bodies have been making favourable sounds."

The letter is signed

"Yours, Michael Archangel, Co-ordinator."

11. The judge held that extrinsic evidence was admissible to identify the property ("Lambeth's property") to which the letter was referring; that the letter was an acknowledgement of the Council having a better title to the Property as the "headquarter's property", that is the first and main property in which clients of the charity were housed and to which everything was addressed; that the acknowledgement was made by Mr Archangel personally, as well as an agent of Rehab II ; and that it was made to an agent of the Council, namely the grants officer.
12. I agree with the judge's conclusions on the letter.
13. Mr Morgan for Mr Archangel accepted that the circumstances surrounding the letter can be taken into account: Edginton v. Clark [1964] 1QB 367 at p.377. He contended, however, that the letter did not recognise any present or relevant superior title in the Council; that it did not even refer on its face to any particular property; that the judge was wrong in referring to extrinsic material, so as to change the letter from being an ambiguous document into a perfected acknowledgement; that the judge wrongly concluded that it referred to the Property, when there was evidence that Rehab II was negotiating for the use of other properties in Lambeth, including a specific property at 27 Paulet Road; that Mr Archangel had written on Rehab II notepaper and signed as agent for Rehab II, which had a separate legal existence from Mr Archangel; and that the letter was not addressed the Council or an agent of the Council, there being no evidence that it was within the scope of Mr Reid's authority to receive letters of acknowledgement.
14. In my judgment, there is no substance in these points. "Lambeth's property" plainly refers to property owned or held by the Council. In cross examination on the letter Mr Archangel accepted that applications for funds were made in relation to the Property, as well as another property at 27 Paulet Road. Mr Archangel's signature appears at the end of the letter. Neither its presence nor its effect is negatived by the fact that he wrote on Rehab II's paper or that he wrote and signed the letter as its chief executive. It was a clear acknowledgement by him of a better title of the Council to the Property. As for Mr Clovis Reid, it is difficult to see what capacity he was acting in, if it was not as an agent of the Council. The letter was in terms intended for him in his official capacity, as a person responsible for the grants which Mr Archangel wished to obtain. The information in the letter, including the PS, was received by him as an employee of the Council.
15. I would dismiss this appeal.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM:

16. I agree

LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN:

17. I also agree
ORDER: Appeal dismissed. The Borough Council to recover three quarters of its costs, to be paid by the Legal Aid Commission. The appellant's costs to be assessed in accordance with Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000. (Order does not form part of approved Judgment)