Ja pye oxford ltd and ja pye oxford land ltd v united kingdom, judgment, app no 4430202, 2008 46 ehrr 45, 23 bhrc 405, 2007 rvr 302, 2007 41 eg 200 cs, ihrl 3565 echr 2007, 30th august 2007, european court of human rights echr published on by oxford university press. J a pye oxford ltd and another v united kingdom2 was the conclusion of a series of cases which established the european court of human rights stance on. This case arises out of the hl decision in j a pye oxford ltd v graham 2002 ukhl. Pye oxford limited free company information from companies house including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity. Pye oxford ltd v the united kingdom application no. Doc case note on ja pye v uk grainne denihan academia. J a pye oxford ltd and others v graham and another 2002 is an english land law judgment from the final court of appeal at the time, the house of lords, on adverse possession facts. The company claimant acted at all times through its director, mr pye. Ja pye oxford ltd v graham 2003 ac 419 house of lords this information can be found in the textbook.
There was an agreement with the buyer of the farmhouse to graze on the disputed. Cited j a pye oxford ltd v the united kingdom echr bailii, 2007 echr 700, bailii, 2007 echr 705, times 01oct07, 4430202, 2007 all er d 177, bailii, 2008 46 ehrr 45 the claimant had said that the uk law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve years occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership. J a pye oxford ltd and others v graham and another 2002 is an english land law judgment from the final court of appeal at the time, the house of lords. Brief history this case arises out of the hl decision in j a pye oxford ltd v graham 2002 ukhl. Pye owned henwick manor and a substantial amount of land. Pye allowed his neighbours the grahams to use he owned, valued at. On appeal, the grand chamber subsequently held that although there was an interference with convention rights, it was a proportionate and thus permissible interference. J a pye oxford ltd and others v graham and another.
Edgeworth et all, sackville and neaves property law cases and materials, 8th edition, lexis nexis, 2008, pp. House of lords j a pye oxford ltd and others v graham and. Ja pye oxford ltd and ja pye oxford land ltd v united. Pye oxford ltd and another v united kingdom 2007 46 ehrr 1083. The issue was only whether or not the claimant had been in actual possession of the land had the defendant squatter dispossessed the paper. We would like to show you a description here but the site wont allow us. The european court has recognised in other contexts that limitation periods. In 1977 he sold off the farmhouse and some of the land and retained the disputed land, which consisted of four fields, with a view to develop it in the future. English law on adverse possession was therefore humanrights compliant.