## Facts

- The dispute concerned a leasehold property held by Tichborne, who had a term of years under the lease.
- Weir, the defendant, claimed to have acquired title to the property via adverse possession.
- Weir argued that his occupation was open, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period applicable to adverse possession, contending this extinguished Tichborne’s leasehold interest.
- Tichborne disputed that Weir’s occupation met the requirements for adverse possession, asserting that it was not adverse or sufficient to override the leaseholder’s rights.
- The court was required to examine whether Weir’s possession fulfilled the legal criteria necessary to defeat Tichborne’s leasehold.

## Issues

1. Whether Weir’s occupation of the leasehold property satisfied the legal requirements for adverse possession as against the leaseholder.
2. Whether the nature of Weir’s possession was sufficiently exclusive, continuous, and open, and without permission, to extinguish Tichborne’s leasehold rights.
3. How the existence and terms of the lease affected the application of adverse possession principles in this context.

## Decision

- The court held that Weir’s occupation did not meet the legal requirements for adverse possession as against Tichborne’s leasehold interest.
- It was found that Weir’s possession lacked the necessary exclusivity and continuity required for a successful adverse possession claim.
- The lease agreement was found to play a decisive role in defining the rights of the parties, and Tichborne’s leasehold rights could not be extinguished without clear and compelling evidence of adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession claims in leasehold contexts require the claimant to demonstrate exclusive, continuous, and open possession for the statutory period, without the leaseholder’s consent.
- The rights and obligations defined by the lease agreement are central in determining whether adverse possession can defeat a leasehold interest.
- The burden is on the claimant to provide unequivocal evidence that their occupation satisfies the strict statutory and common law requirements for adverse possession, particularly in leasehold situations.

## Conclusion

Tichborne v Weir (1892) 67 LT 735 clarified that adverse possession claims against a leasehold require strict satisfaction of exclusivity and continuity criteria without consent, and that leaseholder rights remain protected absent clear evidence of adverse possession.