Out with the Owners: The Eurasian Sequels to J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom
Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 260-276, 2008
18 Pages Posted: 6 Oct 2010 Last revised: 25 Feb 2011
Date Written: April 1, 2008
This article critically analyses the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 3. It criticises the Court's conclusion that the right to property is engaged by the English law of adverse possession. That law is a limit applicable as part of the general law form the moment title is required. As such, it cannot be expanded by the right to property under the European Convention. The author explains how the position is different in relation to adverse possession in Hong Kong and Art 105 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, as recently examined in Harvest Good Development Ltd v Secretary for Justice  4 HKC 1.
Keywords: land law, adverse possession, human rights, right to property, European Convention, Hong Kong Basic Law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation