Partner Matt Champ has successfully resolved a 5-year litigation dispute relating to the ownership of a large mass of concrete in the River Medway. These proceedings saw a fully litigated 7-day trial in the First-Tier Tribunal (Land Registration) Chamber (“FTT”) (which Matt’s client won) as well as parallel proceedings in the Central London County Court for corporate harassment, trespass and damages.
The proceedings relate to a parcel of land that previously operated as a concrete factory, adjacent to the River Medway. Back when regulation was not so tight, said concrete factory dumped its excess or waste concrete into the river. Over a 10-year period, this gave rise to a huge mass of concrete that had, in effect, extended the land (“the Concrete”).
Matt’s client had been situated on the Concrete for a period of time and was attempting to claim adverse possession. Matt’s client’s neighbour thought she owned it as her father had a conveyance that said they had purchased ‘all the land down to the river on the southern side’.
Matt’s position was simple. A tidal boundary (and, yes, the River Medway does have a very old, delineated boundary) can extend if it meets certain rules, e.g. the extension is lawful, gradual and imperceptible. The unlawful dumping of concrete from numerous mixers daily over a decade into a river was clearly going to be noticed, and so the rules relating to such extensions didn’t apply. The result was that the Concrete belonged to the Port Authority and, therefore, could not have been sold to the neighbour’s father as the seller simply didn’t own the land on which the Concrete was dumped.
Rather than resolve the matter in court, the neighbour decided to hire ‘agents’ to attempt to remove Matt’s client by force from the Concrete on multiple occasions. This caused Matt to issue proceedings in the county court against the neighbour for corporate harassment and trespass (“the County Court Proceedings”). Those proceedings were issued on the basis that a trespasser (Matt’s client accepted they didn’t own the Concrete) in possession can claim possession against anyone other than the paper owner. In short, as the neighbour didn’t own the Concrete, they had no right to remove Matt’s client and, by doing so, the neighbour had themselves committed an actionable trespass.
The neighbour counterclaimed for declaratory relief, possession of the Concrete and damages. Also, at the same time, they issued proceedings in the FTT for rectification of their title so that their own title showed that they owned the Concrete. The County Court Proceedings were stayed pending the determination of who actually owned the Concrete, in the hope that it would narrow the issues in the county court.
As noted above, Matt’s client was successful and it was held that the Concrete belonged to the Port Authority.
Matt then relied on the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in the County Court Proceedings which meant that the neighbour, in those proceedings, could not seek to relitigate any findings of fact already made by the FTT. In short, the neighbour could not argue that they had purchased the land on which the Concrete was located, nor could they argue any matter that suggested that concrete was not dumped into the River Medway.
He therefore applied to strike out the neighbour’s Defence and Counterclaim which the neighbour had to concede. The Defence was repleaded in a much sparser form as a result of the findings that had been made by the FTT.
Matt then used that opportunity to apply pressure to the neighbour’s solicitors so as to negotiate and reach a very favourable settlement on behalf of his client that included damages, costs and other relief.
Matt Champ and the team at Colman Coyle have extensive experience of resolving complicated property disputes and would be happy to assist you in any way they can. If you are involved in a property dispute or require advice on your position, please get in touch with Matt or a member of our Property Disputes team.
