The Court of Appeal (CoA) was faced with an unusually long-running family dispute and the question as to whether one of the party's claims for adverse possession was an abuse of process. 

Background:

This is a long-running family dispute over the ownership of a flat in Knightsbridge held under a 999-year lease. The flat was purchased while Iftikhar was living in Pakistan and Vaqar assisted with the completion of the purchase. Vaqar lived at the flat from 1979 to 1981. Thereafter, the flat was used by the brothers and members of their family when visiting London. 

In 1987 there was a major breakdown in family relations and Vaqar locked Iftikhar out of the flat. In 1987, Iftikhar issued proceedings against Vaqar who then counterclaimed. The proceedings were stayed due to a failure to pay the security costs and, in the interim, there were further attempts to resolve the dispute within the family. 

In 2012, Iftikhar applied for the stay on the 1987 proceedings to be lifted which was refused. In that case, Vaqar told the Judge that he would not make a claim in adverse possession. 

In 2017, the freeholder of the flat brought proceedings against Iftikhar, Vaqar and two of Vaqar's sons who were living with him at the flat for breach of covenant to allow access to the flat following a leak.

Iftikhar then started a new possession claim in 2018. In 2022, the trial Court gave judgement in the new possession claim, rejecting Vaqar’s claim that the flat was held in trust for him and that it was an abuse of process, as Vaqar had disavowed making any claim in adverse possession in 2012. Iftikhar was granted possession of the flat and Vaqar was ordered to pay mesne profits for his unlawful occupation of the flat for the six years prior to the issue of the Part 20 claim. Vaqar appealed and the High Court reversed the case but also gave a summary judgement on the 1987 possession action, holding that Iftikhar was the owner and that no adverse possession defence was available. He appealed. 

Decision: 

The CoA dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that statements made by Vaqar at a hearing in 2012 prevented him from being able to rely on any rights to the property which he may have had by reason of adverse possession. The reason is that he made this statement to dissuade the Court from lifting the stay on the 1987 action. Allowing him to rely on it after would have been against fairness and does constitute an abuse of process. 

The CoA did not deal with any of the other issues raised by the appeals, because that determination rendered it either otiose or academic to address the remaining points raised on the combined appeals. However, the Court emphasised that, for a claim in adverse possession to succeed, the claimant must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal intent to possess the property as an owner, which was not the case here, as Vaqar stated that he occupied the property as a licensee. 

Implications:

This decision not only highlights the need to resolve such issues quickly and efficiently. It also demonstrates that parties should not adopt a position to dissuade the courts from doing something and then adopt a contrary position. 

Regarding adverse possession, the Court reaffirmed the high threshold and that the person must demonstrate a clear and unequivocal intent to possess the property as an owner.