## Facts

- The dispute arose over a strip of land adjacent to a petrol station.
- The plaintiff, Epps, claimed adverse possession of the land based on occasional use over several years.
- Esso Petroleum, the defendant, opposed the claim, asserting the use was neither continuous nor exclusive.
- Activities by Epps included parking vehicles and storing materials on the land.
- The land in question was neither enclosed nor demarcated by physical barriers indicating exclusive control.

## Issues

1. Whether occasional and sporadic use of land constitutes sufficient occupation for adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1939.
2. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated the necessary intention to possess and exclude others, including the legal owner.
3. Whether the distinction between use and occupation was satisfied by the plaintiff’s activities.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that occasional use of the land, without continuous and exclusive control, was insufficient for adverse possession.
- Epps's activities, including parking vehicles and storage, did not demonstrate factual possession or intent to exclude others.
- The absence of physical markers or exclusive control undermined the claim.
- The sporadic nature of the plaintiff's use indicated a lack of intent to possess, leading to rejection of the adverse possession claim.

## Legal Principles

- Occasional or intermittent land use does not meet the standard required for adverse possession.
- Adverse possession requires both factual possession (physical control) and the intention to possess (intent to exclude others).
- Use of land is distinct from occupation; only consistent occupation with exclusive control may give rise to adverse possession rights.
- Claimants bear the burden of providing clear evidence of continuous and exclusive use as well as intent to possess.

## Conclusion

Epps v Esso Petroleum confirms that only continuous, exclusive control and clear intention to possess can support a claim to adverse possession; occasional or sporadic use is legally insufficient to displace the rights of the legal owner.

Epps v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 465