The facts of the case In 1974 J Alston & Sons Limited was given permission to farm a 6-acre piece of arable land owned by Barkers & Lee Smith (Norfolk) Limited. Barkers agreed that Alston could farm the land free of charge but would give up the land whenever it was asked to, and Alston was provided with a licence to this affect. Three years later Barkers conveyed the land to Pauls Whites and Foods Limited. Alston continued to farm the land as usual over the next 20 years, during which time the land was conveyed once more to the Defendants BOCM Pauls Limited (a related company of Pauls Whites and Foods Limited). Throughout this period there was no objection or remark from Pauls or BOCM in respect of Alston’s use and occupation of the land. In 2006 Alston wrote to BOCM claiming adverse possession. It asserted that the transfer in 1977 had terminated the original licence and since then Alston had occupied the land without permission. BOCM rejected the claim, and served notice, purporting to terminate the licence. Alston in turn issued proceedings seeking a declaration that it now owned the land under the legal principle of adverse possession. Establishing adverse possession – the legal position Alston sought to establish ownership by using the pre Land Registration 2002 Act rules for adverse possession relying on the requisite 12 years period of occupation from 1977 to 1989. Alston first needed to show that he had enjoyed factual possession with a sufficient degree of exclusivity and control. This requirement was relatively easy to satisfy. Alston had, as a matter of fact, farmed the land exclusively. BOCM could not defeat the claim by asserting that it had occasionally entered the land to access a stop cock and that it had used the land to drain excess water it had pumped out from its adjacent land. Secondly, Alston had to establish that it had manifested the requisite intention to possess. The intention must be to exclude the world at large, including the owner by title, so far as reasonably practical within the parameters of the law. BOCM argued that J Alston had believed he was using the land with permission under a licence therefore he could not have had an intention to possess. J Alston denied this but then went on to say that, in all honesty, he never knew what to believe, and in the absence of being notified of what the actual position was he continued to farm regardless, hoping to do so for as long as possible. It was Alston’s uncertainty as to whether he had permission which became the crux of the matter. The court had to determine, to much controversy, whether this state of mind could amount to an intention to possess. The decision Previous, conflicting, High Court decisions were reviewed to assist in resolving this matter. In Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd v Walters [2006] it was held that a person who intends to remain in possession for his own benefit so long as the owner permits him to, does not have the necessary intention to possess. In Wretham v Ross [2005] however, it was held that an erroneous belief that the owner has given permission, does have the necessary intention to possess. Fortunately for Alston, the decision in Wretham was preferred. It was held that there is no requirement that the squatter must intend to dispossess the owner. The squatter might be prepared to give up the land at the owner’s request, but if the squatter intended to possess for as long as possible for their own benefit, then they could be said to have an intention to possess. In a final attempt to defeat the claim for adverse possession BOCM attempted to argue that its silence whilst Alston continued to occupy amounted to implied permission. The Court did not agree and decided that the fact that there had been no objection or comment on Alston’s occupation only amounted to acquiescence. It would seem that if BOCM had only regulated Alston’s use of the land, and demanded that Alston to enter into a licence any time before 1989, BOCM would probably still be owners of the six acre piece of land.