This case concerned a contested adverse possession application, with the crux of the dispute between the parties focusing on the ten-year condition for adverse possession applications under paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

In clarifying the law on this condition, the Supreme Court has made it a little more difficult to resist adverse possession applications in some circumstances. 

Background 

The parties in this case were Mr Brown and Mr and Mrs Ridley, the registered owners of neighbouring plots of land, which they purchased in 2002 and 2004, respectively. In 2019, the Ridleys begun construction of a new house on a piece of land which, unknown to the Ridleys at the time, enclosed a piece of Mr Brown’s land. The Ridleys applied to the Land Registry to establish their rights over the land in question by way of adverse possession, and the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal found in favour of the Ridleys, although Mr Brown appealed and was successful in the Upper Tribunal. The Ridleys subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court’s decision 

The key issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, which sets out one of three conditions that need to be met for someone to acquire title to land via adverse possession: 

“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) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him… ” 

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the ten years of reasonable belief required under 5(4)(c) meant any ten-year period, and the appeal was therefore allowed.  

Their Lordships took the view that the strict interpretation of this paragraph which Mr Brown asserted should be applied, would place undue pressure on an applicant for adverse possession to apply immediately after their reasonable belief ended. This would be unreasonable and could encourage more formal disputes between neighbours. 

Their Lordships also explored Mr Brown’s argument that 5(4)(c) should be interpreted as allowing a ‘de minimis’ or trivial period of one to two months to apply after their reasonable belief had ended. However, they rejected this argument as there was no basis for it in the wording of the statute, and noted that grace periods, which are specifically provided for in the statute, did not apply to 5(4)(c). 

Lastly, their Lordships touched on Mr Brown’s contention that his Article One, Protocol One right under the European Convention of Human Rights (the protection of property), required that any ambiguity in the law should be resolved in favour of the action that does not deprive someone of their property. However, this argument was dismissed as previous case law suggested that the far more stringent older regime was compliant with Article One, Protocol One. 

Capsticks’ view 

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a welcome clarification of the interpretation of the ten-year condition required for adverse possession applications. The Court’s decision that the required ten-year period of reasonable belief could be any ten-year period, and not only ten years ending at the date of the application, will make it easier for adverse possession claims to be made, but will also allow parties time to explore alternative dispute resolution, rather than rushing to formal resolution. It is therefore more imperative than ever that landowners and custodians of land actively review their sites for evidence of third-party occupation and take action to address it before any such rights arise.  

How Capsticks can help 

Capsticks aims to be the firm of choice for organisations working within the local government sector, offering a full range of services across the full range of development transactions, including large scale regeneration schemes, landlord and tenant work, site acquisitions and disposals and asset management work, including any disputes that might arise. We also have a specialist team who advise on PFI contract management, disputes and termination/expiry issues. 

If you have any queries around what's discussed in this insight, and the impact on your organisation, please speak to Abi Condry or Robert Mackay to find out more about how Capsticks can help.