From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[2002] 3 WLR 221 (HL). The claimant property developer bought a piece of land for future development; in the meantime the company gave permission in writing for the defendant to use it in the meantime for grazing and cutting hay. When the period of the permission expired, the defendant sought renewed permission, but these requests were never answered. Eventually the claimants sought possession in a court action. They failed at first instance, but succeeded in the Court of Appeal, which held that the defendants saw themselves as licencees, not adverse possessors. They did not have the requisite animus possidendi, 'intention to possess', to establish AdversePossession. The House of lords, however, rejected this argument. 'Intention to possess' meant and intention to enter into, and enjoy the benefits of, the land, not an intention to obtain land by adverse possesion. In this case the defendants clearly intended to work the land to their benefit, and the fact that they would have been willing to pay rent had it been asked was not fatal to their position.

Although the law on this point was relatively clear even before Pye, the House did remark on the seeming injustice of the decision. Since the Editing Land registration act (2002) came into force, it is unlikely that this case could be decided the same way.