The 10-Year Period Of Reasonable Belief For Adverse Possession Re-examined In Brown v Ridley (2025)

We previously looked at the first instance decision made in Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in 2024.

This case was then leap-frogged to the Supreme Court who heard the case on 21 January 2025 and handed down written judgment on 26 February 2025.

Brown v Ridley (2024) – the facts

Mr and Mrs Ridley owned Valley View, The Promenade, Consett, County Durham DH8 5NJ since July 2004.

Mr Brown purchased land on the west side of the Promenade in September 2002.

The dispute concerned a strip of land lying within the boundary of Mr Brown’s land.

Mr Shaw, the predecessor of the Valley View had enclosed the Disputed Land by way of a picket fence and hedge just inside the fence. Therefore, the Ridley’s had been in exclusive possession since 2004.

Mr and Mrs Ridley obtained planning permission and constructed a new dwelling between 2019/2020. This was constructed on the Disputed Land.

After Mr Brown beware aware of this and following correspondence between the parties, the Ridleys made an application on 10 December 2019. Mr Brown was given notice and obviously objected and asked for the application to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6.

The matter was referred by the land registry to the First Tier Tribunal for determination.

The Initial Decisions

Mr and Mrs Ridley claimed they became aware of the issues of ownership in October 2019 and made an application within 2 months.

Mr Brown disputed that they had been in actual adverse possession or that they held the intention to possess for the necessary 10 years.

Mr Brown also alleged that any reasonable belief they held ended on February 2018 or October 2019 and was well short of the 10 years required.

Judge Baston decided on 2 March 2023 in Mr and Mrs Ridley’s favour.

He felt that they had made out actual adverse possession and held reasonable belief during a 10 year period albeit that ended in February 2018.

Mr Brown appealed and this was heard by Justice Edwin Johnson in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on 5 December 2023 with judgment being handed down on 23 January 2024.

The issue was whether the prior case of Zarb v Perry (2011) was binding authority that the 10 year reasonable belief had to be the 10 years ending on the date of the relevant application.

The judge decided that “Zarb constitutes binding authority that this period of ten years, during which the required reasonable belief in ownership must exist, is the period of ten years ending on the date of the application for registration.”

The application for registration by Mr and Mrs Ridley was dismissed in Mr Brown’s favour.

But he also felt that Zarb had been wrongly decided as it allowed no period of grace from the point that one is aware there is an issue with ownership and then lodging an application.

The Supreme Court Decision

The higher court was called upon to decide on a single issue of construction of part of one of the conditions for obtaining registered title on the basis of adverse possession (of registered land)

The relevant provision is paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, namely:

(c) 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 court explained that there were two ways to interpret this provision

A. the period of reasonable belief must be a period of at least ten years ending on the date of the application
B. the period of reasonable belief can be any period of at least ten years within the potentially longer period of adverse possession which ends on the date of the application

The court expressed concerns that “the typical applicant wishing to satisfy the boundary condition would only contemplate an application for registration once disabused of a reasonable belief in his ownership, and could not possibly be expected to do so on the same day as he lost his reasonable belief, which is what construction A appears to require”

They upheld the decisions previously made and the appeal was dismissed. They felt that interpretation B was the more sensible and reflected “the ordinary meaning of the words”.

Last Words

Boundary disputes are usually highly contentious with emotion running high. But most do not make it to the courts, let alone the Supreme court, as litigation is both costly and time consuming. In some cases the legal costs can end up dwarfing the value of the land in dispute and result in the owner having to dispose of their home in order to meet them.

Litigation should not be embarked on lightly, especially in boundary disputes, and particularly without sound legal and professional advice.

To discuss a Property Dispute matter, contact our highly experienced Property Disputes team on 0330 822 3451 or request a callback.