Limitations Act 1980

[Mudlark]

We are a group of boaters in unchallenged Adverse Possession of a riverbank .
The navigation authority have issued us with trespass notices, accusing us of trespass over the riverbed they own.
Our question is!!
Does the 1980 limitations Act come to our rescue, as we are here more than 6yrs?

[atticus]

No chance. At the very least 12 years for adverse possession of land, but gaining adverse possession is very much harder if the owner's title is registered.

And there may well be further complications with a navigation authority, which may have particular statutory rights and powers.

NB it's the Limitation Act 1980.


EDIT - you may find this thread useful: https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...rse-possession

[Mudlark]

Sorry, but you have read the wrong part of the 1980 Act and you have mis read my question.
the question is!!!
Does the 1980 LA apply to Trespass (not Adverse Possession, which is not being challenged)
?

[atticus]

Sorry, it must have been the reference to adverse possession in post 1 that confused me.

Your trespass is continuing. Every day that it continues theres is a fresh cause of action.

Can I point out that previously you said you have been there since November 2018, i.e. 5 years now.

[Mudlark]

IMG-20231114-WA0005.jpg Hi Atticus, thank you for your input, but your reasoning must be suspect.
if a fresh trespass is being committed every day, then there could never be a limitation act that covers it.
LA 1980 s2 states that 'the claim runs from the date upon which the claimant suffers the damage caused by the tort'
You msje a good point about how long I'm on my mooring but the red lines on the claimants map includes my previous mooring.

[Mudlark]

My research tells me that this is covered in a book by Andrew McGee
9th edition. Limitations Act.
I have no access to this book as I'm a layman not a lawman!!

[atticus]

something to read: https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-n...ss-to-land.php

See the section on continuing trespass.

Think of it like this. If I trespass on your land, cause damage, and leave, you have 6 years to sue me. If I trespass and stay, every day I am trespassing: your cause of action is renewed. However, you will not be able to recover damages in respect of any occurence more than 6 years ago.

[Mudlark]

Thank you again Articus,
The case you rely on predates the 1980 LA act by about 180yrs and ignores LA 1980 s2.
How do you see LA 80 being applied today.l believe it time bars claims of trespass after 6yrs.

[R0b]

Mudlark, Atticus right.

Your misunderstanding is that there is a 6 year limitation period applies to a single act of trespass in as much the same way that if you fail to pay a bill in January and then also in September of that same year, there would be two separate actions against you, the first starting 6 years from January and the other 6 years from September.

It is well established by case law that an individual who commits trespass to the land and then continues to trespass on the land, then each day of trespass will be treated as an act of trespass independent of one another and thus the clock for each act of trespass has a 6 year period until such time the trespass no longer occurs.

To an extent, you are right that the limitation period technically never expires for as long as you remain trespassing on the land because the owner of the land can point to each day of trespass that falls within the 6 year period. The simple answer to stop the limitation period from resetting each time, is to not commit any more trespass.

I suggest you do some further research on the matter, particularly if you google the phrase "continuing trespass to land" which will throw up a number of legal articles and references to various case law, particularly the cases of Konskier v Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB 421 and Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) 10 A&E 503 which support these views.

[atticus]

Did you see the paragraph I added to post #7?

[Mudlark]

I'll look up the references you mention but I would like to see one that has been applied after the LA Act 1980 was passed.
Thank you , very much appreciated
Mudlark

[R0b]

If you think that only case law after the 1980 Act is applicable then you are sadly mistaken and completely misunderstand the law and how it operates, but to prove my point, the link below to a 2008 case refers to continuing trespass and also the two cases I mentioned above.

You are free to disregard what we are saying but I suspect if you continue down this path, the authority may take legal action and you are likely to lose with potentially significant costs.

Field Common Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2079 (Ch) (27 August 2008) (bailii.org)

[atticus]

Large parts of the Limitation Act 1980 repeat provisions of earlier Limitation Acts, and are not new.

[Mudlark]

Thank you ATTICUS, and Rob also.
Reading some of the case law you so kindly pointed out, I think there are grounds to establish that we are not trespassing.
The claimants do not have exclusive possession of the land. Our navigation and riparian rights give us rights over the bed and soil of the river.
Really appreciate your help and advice this evening,thank you both.

[R0b]

Exclusive possession has a specific legal meaning that is potentially different to your understanding of the phrase. Not particularly convinced myself that those riparian rights act as any defence to the trespass notice as I understand riparian rights relate to the owner of the land rather than someone who might be a user. So according to your statement, this would suggest you are owner or part owner of the riverbed... . which you will need to prove ownership of and in my view makes your original question about adverse possession null and void.

With that said, good luck and I hope you know what you are doing.