Welcome to the second edition of RED Alert of 2025.
Also featuring in this month's update:
Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7
Summary
The Supreme Court clarified the position of the ten-year 'reasonable belief' requirement under the Land Registration Act 2002, in the landmark decision of Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7. Previously, there had been debate over how the ten years should be defined – whether it should be defined as any period of ten years, or whether it should be defined as a period of ten years immediately before the application for adverse possession is made. The Supreme Court ruled that it should be any period of ten years.
Adverse possession
Adverse possession, also known as 'squatters rights', is the legal principle where someone can gain ownership of land or property by occupying it without the owner's permission for a certain period, if they meet specific conditions. There are two schemes: one for registered land under the Land Registration Act 2002 (the LRA 2002), and another for unregistered land and registered land where a right to be registered was acquired before 13 October 2003. Here, we comment on the scheme under the LRA 2002.
Under the LRA 2002, the person applying for adverse possession must prove that they have:
- uninterrupted factual possession of the land for a period of ten years
- an intention to possess the land during this period
- possession without the owner’s consent.
Further to Schedule 6, paragraph 5(4)(c) of the LRA 2002, the third condition on which an applicant will be registered as the new proprietor of the land is "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…"
Until the Supreme Court decision in Brown v Ridley, there has been no certainty on how the ten years should be defined.
Background
Mr Brown owned a piece of land in County Durham, which he purchased in September 2002. Mr and Mrs Ridley owned an adjacent plot of land which they purchased in July 2004. The previous owner of the Ridleys' land had put up a fence and planted a hedge along what was understood to be the boundary between the land owned by the parties (the Disputed Land).
The Ridleys treated the Disputed Land as part of their garden and later for constructing a new house.
In December 2019, the Ridleys applied to the Land Registry to be registered as the owners of the land, claiming adverse possession. Mr Brown objected, and the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal, which found in favour of the Ridleys. Upon appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Mr Brown was successful. The appeal was transferred directly to the Supreme Court which was asked to consider the sole issue of definition of ten years reasonable belief under the LRA 2002.
Decision
The Supreme Court found that the ten-year period does not have to cover the lastten years before the application, but can relate to any ten-year period with the period occupation of the disputed land.
The Supreme Court looked at the wording in Schedule 6 Paragraph 5 of the LRA 2002, as referred to above, and took the view that given the additional protection elsewhere within the Act, there was no need to apply an over restrictive interpretation and so any ten-year period of time of reasonable belief was sufficient. Realistically, making an application on the day that your reasonable belief ended, was not practical.
Equally, if the alternative interpretation was preferred, the party claiming adverse possession would need to make their application immediately upon the ending of their reasonable belief which may exacerbate disputes between neighbours and leave no room for negotiation or taking legal advice. The position going forward enables parties to work towards an amicable solution without rushing through the adverse possession process.
Our comment
This decision is welcome news for those seeking to claim land through adverse possession, and gives clarification on the strict application seen in cases such as Zarb v Parry, which required the period of reasonable belief to be held right up until the application was made. The decision means that those claiming land through adverse possession don't have to prove that they believed it was theirs for the entirety of the past ten years immediately before the application was made.
As this case demonstrates, landowners should remain cautious about potential boundary disputes and claims over their land. The interpretation of the 'reasonable belief' requirement now allows for a broader range of adverse possession claims, which could have significant consequences for landowners. If a landowner suspects that someone is using their land, it's best to act sooner rather than later, as the longer you wait, the more difficult it could be to stop an adverse possession claim.
