A Tale of Two Worlds
The doctrine of adverse possession, where someone can claim ownership of another's property after occupying it for a certain period, sparks strong reactions. While it excites law students, it enrages others, particularly in the context of Australia's current housing crisis.
Despite the media attention, the doctrine has limited practical relevance in modern Australia. With short timeframes for legal action (12-15 years), most owners would notice someone occupying their property. However, the doctrine's history and implications remain intriguing.
## A Case of Unintentional Ownership
The case of Henry Downie's Sydney house exemplifies the doctrine's application. After Downie's death and his will's non-administration, Mrs. Grimes rented the house for 50 years. Downie's next of kin remained unaware of their inheritance and Grimes' tenancy.
Following Grimes' death, developer Bill Gertos occupied the vacant house, made repairs, leased it, and paid rates for 17 years. He then applied to become the registered proprietor, prompting Downie's next of kin to contest his claim.
The court ruled in Gertos' favor, recognizing his "possession" since the late 1990s. Despite the next of kin's legal right to eject him, their failure to do so within the 12-year limit resulted in Gertos' ownership claim. He subsequently sold the house for $1.4 million.
## Historical Context and Relevance
This case highlights the doctrine's emphasis on land care. Failure to take responsibility for one's land can lead to its loss to someone who does. However, such instances are rare in Australia compared to England, where historical factors like lack of documentation and vast aristocratic landholdings played a significant role.
In post-war England, squatting in vacant houses owned by negligent landlords became prevalent. In contrast, Australian governments actively discouraged the emergence of a landed class. However, current tax policies and reliance on the private sector for housing have created a landlord class and exacerbated housing stress for younger generations.
## A Call for Change
Jordan van den Berg's advocacy for the doctrine reflects the growing frustration with the housing market's inequities. Young people, priced out by older, wealthier buyers and tax benefits, are demanding access to affordable housing.
While squatting in Australia likely leads to swift eviction, van den Berg's call serves as a reminder of the housing market's imbalances. Baby Boomers and Gen X should be aware that young people are demanding their rightful place in the housing landscape.