Do you believe the land belongs to you? Adverse Possession update after Brown v Ridley

The case of Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7 has recently clarified the requirements for making an application for adverse possession under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA 2002”) in relation to the time limit required for the “period of reasonable belief” that the applicant was the owner of land in dispute.

Adverse possession under Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002

Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows a person to apply to the Land Registry for ownership of land where they have been in occupation of the land and do not have permission from the landowner.

To apply for adverse possession under Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002, which is the relevant law in relation to the case of Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7, the applicant must show that they have been in possession of the registered land for a period of ten years, ending on the date of the application. The applicant must also have a “reasonable belief” during that ten year period that the land belonged to them.

Once an application is made, the Land Registry will notify various parties with an interest in the property. At this point, those parties are able to object to the application and require it to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002.

Paragraph 5 requires that at least one of the following conditions are met for the application to succeed:

1. It would be unconscionable because of equity by estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to remove the applicant from the land;
2. For some other reason, the applicant is entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the land; or
3. For at least ten years of adverse possession, ending on the date of the application, the land is adjacent to land which belongs to the applicant and they reasonably believed that the land belonged to them. The land must also be registered at least one year prior to the date of the application and furthermore, the exact boundary line has not been determined under section 60 of the LRA 2002.

Background

Mr and Mrs Ridley appealed against the first instance decision in relation to a piece of neighbouring land between their property and Mr Brown’s property. Between their properties there was a strip of land, which contained a fence and a hedge that had been planted by the previous owner of Mr and Mrs Ridley’s property (“the Disputed Land”). The Ridleys had used the Disputed Land as part of their garden and in 2018 they obtained planning permission for a new house which was to be partially built on the neighbouring strip of land.

When Mr Brown became aware of the construction work and discovered that the Disputed Land was within the title to his land, he opposed the construction of the house that the Ridleys were planning to build. Mr and Mrs Ridley then made an application to the Land Registry for registration of the Disputed Land as theirs, on the basis of adverse possession. Mr Brown objected to the application. The Land Registry referred the matter to the First-Tier Tribunal in February 2021. The First-Tier Tribunal sided with Mr and Mrs Ridley and allowed the application for adverse possession. Mr Brown appealed and was successful in the Upper Tribunal and Mr and Mrs Ridley then further appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court gave judgment on 26 February 2025. The key issue was the interpretation in relation to the construction of the wording in Schedule 6, paragraph 5(c) LRA 2002 which states that “for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonable believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him”. The point considered by the Supreme Court was how the grammar meant that this paragraph should be construed. The question was whether the period of reasonable belief has to be ten years ending on the exact date of the application (construction A), or, any period of at least ten years within the total time of adverse possession (construction B)?

The Supreme Court concluded that construction A, which would require the period of reasonable belief to coincide exactly with the ten years ending on the date of application, would make it “virtually inconceivable” for an applicant to prepare and submit an application on the same day that they are made aware of a dispute, thus losing their reasonable belief.

In relation to Mr and Mrs Ridley’s case, the First-Tier Tribunal had found that they had reasonably believed they were the owners of the disputed land from 2004 until approximately February 2018, when in the process of obtaining planning permission, evidence came to light that showed they did not own the piece of disputed land. The Supreme Court found that there was therefore a gap of about 21 months between the ending of their 14-year period of reasonable belief before they made their application and this led to the appeal in relation to whether this period could be allowed.

The Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the “reasonable belief” period is for the purpose of preventing those, such as knowing trespassers, who know they are in wrongful possession of land from benefitting from their wrongdoing.

The judgment given was that the proper construction was construction B, due to the fact that construction A leads to a party being required to immediately start a process which is likely to lead to dispute and litigation, therefore being most unlikely to have been the intention of the lawmakers.

As a result, the outcome here was that the Supreme Court restored the decision from the First-Tier Tribunal, meaning that Mr and Mrs Ridley were successful in their application and were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the disputed land.

Key takeaways

This judgment clarifies the time period for reasonable belief in adverse possession cases and is particularly significant for boundary disputes. This does now mean that an application does not need to be made on the date that the ten year period of reasonable belief ends. The reason this is important is because it allows time for proper communication and negotiation between neighbours and for alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation to be considered.

The Supreme Court recognised the risk to good neighbourly relations if an application is made without the consideration of good legal advice. It is important for both parties to ensure that they have taken proper specialist legal advice if they find themselves in a situation where they are either planning to make a claim for adverse possession, or looking to defend such a claim.

Our Property Litigation team regularly deals with substantial adverse possession claims on both sides and we have vast experience in this specialist area of property law. Please contact Partner Shams Rahman or any other member of the Property & Trusts Disputes team for further information.

Our Property & Trusts Litigation team has substantial knowledge and experience in this specialist area of law. For further information, please contact Shams Rahman or any of our partners in the Property Litigation team.