Welcome

Powell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452

ResourcesPowell v McFarlane (1979) 38 P & CR 452

Facts

  • The dispute centered on a piece of agricultural land claimed by Mr. Powell through adverse possession after over 12 years of occupation.
  • Mr. Powell argued that his use of the land—including grazing cattle and maintaining fences—demonstrated factual possession sufficient to acquire title.
  • Mr. McFarlane, the registered owner, disputed these claims, asserting the acts were insufficient for adverse possession.
  • The court examined the nature, extent, and continuity of Powell’s use, his intention regarding possession, and whether his actions showed exclusive control.

Issues

  1. Did Mr. Powell's actions satisfy both elements required for adverse possession: factual possession and intention to possess?
  2. Were Powell’s activities on the land sufficient to demonstrate exclusive control and the necessary animus possidendi?
  3. Was intermittent and non-exclusive use, such as grazing and limited maintenance, adequate to establish adverse possession under English law?

Decision

  • The court concluded that Mr. Powell’s actions, including grazing cattle and maintaining fences, did not amount to exclusive control or factual possession.
  • Intermittent, largely natural use and lack of clear, exclusive control were deemed insufficient for adverse possession.
  • The required intention to possess the land as one’s own (animus possidendi) was not established on the facts.
  • Adverse possession demands more than mere occupation; there must be unequivocal acts asserting ownership.
  • To establish adverse possession, a claimant must prove both factual possession (physical control sufficient to exclude others, including the owner) and intention to possess (animus possidendi).
  • Factual possession involves consistent and exclusive acts of control; sporadic or minimal use is inadequate.
  • Intention to possess is assessed objectively through conduct, not subjective belief or motivation.
  • Both factual possession and intention to possess must be shown concurrently; one without the other is insufficient.

Conclusion

Powell v McFarlane established a rigorous two-part test for adverse possession, requiring clear and continuous acts of exclusive control alongside an objective intention to possess, thereby setting a lasting standard for property law claims in England.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.