Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

13.125 The situation should also be viewed in the context of conveyancing practice. The
limitation period for actions by the Crown or the Church of England was reduced
from 60 years to 30 years in the Limitation Act 1939, on the recommendation of
the Law Revision Committee. The reason was that the period for which a
purchaser could investigate title to unregistered land had been reduced from 60
years to 30 years by section 44(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. In the words
of the Law Revision Committee:
We suggest that it may cause hardship if claims can be enforced in respect
of a cause of action which arose before the period during which a
purchaser is entitled to investigate title. 174
The period for investigation of title was further reduced from 30 years to 15 years
when section 44(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 was amended by the Law of
Property Act 1969. 175
Although limited to unregistered land, the reasoning of the
Law Revision Committee could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to support a
shortening of the current special limitation periods.
13.126 Our provisional view is that the additional protection for spiritual and
eleemosynary corporations sole and for the Crown, in respect of actions to
recover land, should be abolished. Consultees are asked whether they
agree. Consultees are also asked whether, as an alternative, they consider
that it would be justified to retain a special limitation period for the Crown
in certain circumstances, for example, claims relating to foreshore or sea
bed, or claims to property acquired as bona vacantia or by escheat. If so,
they are asked to comment on the circumstances in which the special
limitation period should apply, and the length of the period.
13.127 We have noted above 176
that section 17 of the 1980 Act, in providing for the
extinguishment of an owner’s title, could be construed as affecting the Crown’s
ultimate interest in all land. Whilst there does not seem to be any genuine
uncertainty as to its intention, we take the view that any future limitation
legislation should be clearer on this point. We provisionally recommend that
where a person has been in adverse possession of land as against the
Crown and the limitation period expires: (i) in the case of unregistered
land the Crown’s title to the land should be extinguished so far (but only so
far) as its continued existence would be inconsistent with the squatter’s
acquisition of an estate in fee simple and (ii) in the case of registered land
the trust under section 75(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 should take
effect in relation to the Crown’s estate in the land so far (but only so far)
as its continued existence would be inconsistent with the squatter’s
acquisition of an estate in fee simple. We ask consultees whether they
agree.
1925, s 46(1)(vi). The Crown may in rare circumstances acquire property by escheat (see
Halsbury’s Laws vol 39 para 597), in which case similar considerations apply.
174 Fifth Interim Report (Statutes of Limitation) (1936) Cmd 5334, para 8.
175 Law of Property Act 1969, s 23.
176 See para 6.43 above.
364