## Facts

- The case concerned a dispute over land ownership between the claimant (Seddon) and the defendant (Smith).
- The claimant engaged in various activities on the disputed land, including fencing, cultivation, and construction of temporary structures.
- These acts of possession were sporadic and not maintained consistently over the statutory period required for adverse possession.
- The legitimacy of the claimant’s acts as sufficient evidence of possession and ownership intent was contested by the legal owner.
- The Court of Appeal examined whether these acts demonstrated the legal requirements for a successful adverse possession claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s acts of possession constituted sufficient factual possession to support a claim for adverse possession.
2. Whether the claimant’s actions demonstrated the necessary intention to possess (animus possidendi) the disputed land.
3. Whether sporadic and intermittent acts could fulfill the statutory requirements for adverse possession.

## Decision

- The court held that isolated or intermittent acts of possession, without clear evidence of intention to exclude the legal owner, were insufficient for adverse possession.
- It was determined that both factual possession and intention to possess must be clearly shown by the claimant.
- The claimant’s sporadic use and lack of continuity in acts of possession did not satisfy the requirements for establishing ownership through adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession requires evidence of both factual possession (physical control and use) and animus possidendi (intention to possess to the exclusion of others).
- The burden of proof lies on the claimant to provide clear and unequivocal evidence for both elements.
- Sporadic or equivocal acts of possession, particularly those not maintained over the necessary statutory period, are unlikely to succeed in adverse possession claims.
- The case reinforced the principle that intention to possess must involve more than mere use; it must reflect an intention to exclude the legal owner.

## Conclusion

Seddon v Smith clarified that successful claims of adverse possession demand both factual possession and a genuine intention to possess, rejecting sporadic or ambiguous acts as insufficient. This precedent continues to shape judicial evaluation of ownership disputes related to adverse possession.

Seddon v Smith (1877) 36 LT 168