逆权占有与边界纠纷:国外对爱尔兰的启示

Una Woods
{"title":"逆权占有与边界纠纷:国外对爱尔兰的启示","authors":"Una Woods","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-05-2015-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThis paper aims to examine the remedies currently available in Ireland to resolve boundary disputes to assess the importance of the role played by adverse possession in this context. It also examines the potential impact of certain reforms in this area of law. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nThe research methodology is primarily doctrinal, although a comparative approach is adopted for the purposes of assessing whether certain lessons can be learned from recent reforms to the English law on adverse possession and the Australian approach to resolving boundary disputes, which relies heavily on mistaken improver and building encroachment legislation. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThis paper demonstrates how the current law leaves certain mistaken improvers or encroachers on neighbouring land without a remedy, as they cannot rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or adverse possession. If Ireland decides to replicate the English good faith requirement in relation to adverse possession of boundary land, the remedial vacuum facing these mistaken improvers or encroaching builders will become more pronounced. It is submitted that any such reform should be supplemented by the introduction of legislation akin to that operating in Australia which would facilitate the consideration of a broad range of factors and provide for flexible remedies to resolve such difficulties. It is also submitted that the legislation imposing such a good faith requirement should be carefully drafted to avoid the potential interpretative difficulties associated with the English reforms. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nBoundary disputes are an unfortunate fact of life. The prevalence of boundary disputes and high costs associated with boundary litigation makes this review and critique of the current law and potential reforms highly relevant.","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adverse possession and boundary disputes: lessons for Ireland from abroad\",\"authors\":\"Una Woods\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJLBE-05-2015-0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper aims to examine the remedies currently available in Ireland to resolve boundary disputes to assess the importance of the role played by adverse possession in this context. It also examines the potential impact of certain reforms in this area of law. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe research methodology is primarily doctrinal, although a comparative approach is adopted for the purposes of assessing whether certain lessons can be learned from recent reforms to the English law on adverse possession and the Australian approach to resolving boundary disputes, which relies heavily on mistaken improver and building encroachment legislation. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper demonstrates how the current law leaves certain mistaken improvers or encroachers on neighbouring land without a remedy, as they cannot rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or adverse possession. If Ireland decides to replicate the English good faith requirement in relation to adverse possession of boundary land, the remedial vacuum facing these mistaken improvers or encroaching builders will become more pronounced. It is submitted that any such reform should be supplemented by the introduction of legislation akin to that operating in Australia which would facilitate the consideration of a broad range of factors and provide for flexible remedies to resolve such difficulties. It is also submitted that the legislation imposing such a good faith requirement should be carefully drafted to avoid the potential interpretative difficulties associated with the English reforms. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nBoundary disputes are an unfortunate fact of life. The prevalence of boundary disputes and high costs associated with boundary litigation makes this review and critique of the current law and potential reforms highly relevant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":158465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-05-2015-0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-05-2015-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在研究爱尔兰目前可用的解决边界争端的补救措施,以评估逆权占有在这种情况下所起作用的重要性。它还审查了这一法律领域某些改革的潜在影响。设计/方法/方法研究方法主要是理论性的,尽管采用了比较方法,以评估是否可以从最近对英国法律的逆权占有改革和澳大利亚解决边界争端的方法中吸取某些教训,这在很大程度上依赖于错误的改进和建筑物侵占立法。本文论证了现行法律如何使相邻土地上的某些错误的改良者或侵占者得不到补救,因为他们不能依靠所有权禁止反悔或时效占有的原则。如果爱尔兰决定在边界土地逆权占有方面复制英国的诚信要求,那么这些错误的改善者或侵占的建筑商面临的补救真空将变得更加明显。有人认为,任何这类改革都应辅以采用类似于澳大利亚现行立法的立法,这将有助于审议广泛的因素,并为解决这些困难提供灵活的补救办法。它还认为,规定这种诚信要求的立法应仔细起草,以避免与英语改革有关的潜在解释困难。创意/价值边界争议是生活中一个不幸的事实。边界纠纷的普遍存在和与边界诉讼相关的高成本使得本文对现行法律和潜在改革的审查和批评具有高度相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adverse possession and boundary disputes: lessons for Ireland from abroad
Purpose This paper aims to examine the remedies currently available in Ireland to resolve boundary disputes to assess the importance of the role played by adverse possession in this context. It also examines the potential impact of certain reforms in this area of law. Design/methodology/approach The research methodology is primarily doctrinal, although a comparative approach is adopted for the purposes of assessing whether certain lessons can be learned from recent reforms to the English law on adverse possession and the Australian approach to resolving boundary disputes, which relies heavily on mistaken improver and building encroachment legislation. Findings This paper demonstrates how the current law leaves certain mistaken improvers or encroachers on neighbouring land without a remedy, as they cannot rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or adverse possession. If Ireland decides to replicate the English good faith requirement in relation to adverse possession of boundary land, the remedial vacuum facing these mistaken improvers or encroaching builders will become more pronounced. It is submitted that any such reform should be supplemented by the introduction of legislation akin to that operating in Australia which would facilitate the consideration of a broad range of factors and provide for flexible remedies to resolve such difficulties. It is also submitted that the legislation imposing such a good faith requirement should be carefully drafted to avoid the potential interpretative difficulties associated with the English reforms. Originality/value Boundary disputes are an unfortunate fact of life. The prevalence of boundary disputes and high costs associated with boundary litigation makes this review and critique of the current law and potential reforms highly relevant.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信