Comparative Analysis of Adverse Possession: J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom

In August 2006 Her Majesty's Court Service asked the Institute to conduct a piece of comparative research with respect to statutes of limitation in the following common law and civil law jurisdictions; Hungary, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada.

The request emanated from counsel appearing in a human rights case before the European Court of Human Rights, J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom. The United Kingdom appealed against the decision of 15 November 2005 to the effect that a failure to provide compensation for loss of title to land acquired on expiry of a statutory period of limitation violates Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Convention (Application no. 44302/02).

The Institute was asked to provide:

  • The original text and a translation into English of the legal provisions relating to the length of the limitation of action or prescription period for the acquisition of title to land by adverse possession.
  • A summary of the most important case law, if any, based on these provisions.

In particular, the following questions were considered:

  • Do limitation or prescription periods differ depending upon whether adverse possession is in 'good faith'?
  • Is compensation available for those who lose title to land at the end of a limitation or prescription period? If so, under which conditions?

Project Report

The project report can be accessed by Institute members here. If you have any queries on the report please contact the Institute.

National Rapporteurs

The Institute is grateful in particular to the following national rapporteurs for their input on this project:

  • Professor Doctor Miquel Martín-Casals, Observatory of European and Comparative Private Law, University of Girona (Spain)
  • Mårten Schultz, Dept. of Law, Stockholm University
  • Dr Wolf-Georg Ringe, M.Jur. (Oxon)