BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Razia Din v Yasmin Akhtar Mustafa Abbas (Practice and Procedure : Scope of jurisdiction) [2018] UKFTT 444 (PC) (11 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/2017_0846.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 444 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Razia Din v Yasmin Akhtar Mustafa Abbas (Practice and Procedure : Scope of jurisdiction) [2018] UKFTT 444 (PC) (11 July 2018)
[2018] UKFTT 444 (PC). Application under Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002 in respect of a parcel of land adjoining two properties, of which the Respondent was registered with both freehold and leasehold title. Held that the Applicant could establish at least 10 years adverse possession. Also held that the Respondent-™s Form NAP did not, on its true construction, give notice that the application was required to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. Although this point was not taken by the Applicant-™s representative, it was considered a matter that the Tribunal was obliged to raise as the Tribunal could not proceed on the basis of an erroneous matter of law, even if undisputed, and it went to the issue of jurisdiction. In any event, it was found that the Applicant was able to rely on the second condition in paragraph 5 (adopting a wide construction of the period during which a reasonable belief as to ownership must have existed) and the third condition, since the Applicant would have been entitled to be registered under the provisions of paragraph 18 of Schedule 12 to the 2002 Act in the alternative. It was ordered that effect be given to the application but only in respect of the Respondent-™s leasehold title as time had not started to run and possession could not be adverse to the freehold title.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKFTT 444 (PC)
