Page 333 - 2. 2013 New 26-05-21 No Table

The new regime – a brief overview Prior to the coming into force of the LRA 2002, a squatter could
acquire the right to be registered as proprietor of a registered estate if they had been in adverse
possession of the land for a minimum of 12 years. However, the doctrine of adverse possession did
not fit easily with the concept of indefeasibility of title that underlies the system of land registration.
Nor could it be justified by the uncertainties as to ownership which can arise where land is
unregistered; the legal estate is vested in the registered proprietor and they are identified in the
register. The LRA 2002 has created a new regime that applies only to registered land. This new
regime is set out in Schedule 6 to the Act. It makes it more likely that a registered proprietor will be
able to prevent an application for adverse possession of their land being completed. The following
paragraphs provide a brief overview of the new regime; the remaining sections of this guide discuss it
in more detail. Adverse possession of registered land for 12 years of itself will no longer affect the
registered proprietor’s title. After 10 years’ adverse possession, the squatter will be entitled to apply to
be registered as proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land. On such an application
being made the registered proprietor (and certain other persons interested in the land) will be notified
and given the opportunity to oppose the application. If the application is not opposed1, the squatter
will be registered as proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land. If the application is
opposed, it will be rejected unless either: it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel
for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the squatter and the squatter ought in the
circumstances to be registered as proprietor the squatter is for some other reason entitled to be
registered as proprietor, or the squatter has been in adverse possession of land adjacent to their own
under the mistaken but reasonable belief that they are the owner of it, the exact line of the boundary
with this adjacent land has not been determined and the estate to which the application relates was
registered more than a year prior to the date of the application. In the event that the application is
rejected but the squatter remains in adverse possession for a further two years, they will then be able,
subject to certain exceptions, to reapply to be registered as proprietor and this time will be so
registered whether or not anyone opposes the
137,
application. I by ‘opposed’ we mean that a counter notice is served; see section 8 Giving counter
notice to the registrar in response to notice. Instead, or at the same time, the registered proprietor may
object to the application on the ground that there has not been the necessary 10 years’ adverse
possession; see section 7 Objecting to the squatter’s application for the implications of such an
objection.
138,
From: JOSEPHINE WARD [josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 August 2013 12:23
To: Lorraine Cordell; michael@michaelcarrollandco.com
Subject: Regina v. Simon Cordell for plea and case management hearing on 4th September 2013 at
Woolwich Crown Court
Dear Lorraine / Simon
Thank you for your telephone call today. I am copying Michael Carroll into this email as he is now
overseeing and monitoring all the work that I undertake in this case to ensure that I am preparing your
case properly and to your satisfaction and complying with your instructions. I set out below the main
content of our conversation but if I have left anything out please come back to me as soon as possible.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Simon you confirmed that your benefits had been suspended and you did not have the funds to attend
the police station every day. You stated that Edmonton Police Station is a 2-mile walk from where
you currently live. You have asked me to make an application to remove this bail condition.
Secondly, you have asked that your curfew be suspended for an up and coming festival in Enfield.
Thirdly, you have asked me to consider the merits of making an application to dismiss the charges
against you based on the fact that you entered a building that was being squatted in and therefore you
were not a trespasser.
Fourthly you stated that the photographs sent to you were of poor quality and were in black and
white.
Fifth, you complained that the barrister did not present your case properly.