Adverse possession claims — significant judgment a ‘win’ for practicality in boundary disputes

On 26 February 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Brown (Respondent) v Ridley and Another (Appellants), addressing the interpretation of the ten-year ‘reasonable belief’ requirement under the Land Registration Act 2002.

This case has important implications for adverse possession claims — particularly in boundary disputes — as Paddy Fearnon and Helena Davies explain.

This article focuses on the requirements under the Land Registration Act 2002, which came into force on 13 October 2003 and applies to land from this date onwards.

What is adverse possession?

Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows someone to claim ownership of land if they’ve occupied it for a certain period of time without the owner's permission. This concept is sometimes referred to as ‘squatter's rights’.

Under the Land Registration Act 2002, the person applying for adverse possession must prove that they had:

• 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.

The applicant must also establish one or more of the following three grounds:

1. It would be unconscionable for the registered owner of the land to dispossess the squatter due to an equity by estoppel, meaning that the squatter has a right to stay and should be registered as the owner.
2. The squatter is entitled to be registered as the owner for some other reason, such as a legal right or entitlement.
3. The squatter has been in adverse possession of land adjacent to their own under the reasonable belief that they’re the owner of it.

The battle of the boundary

In Brown (Respondent) v Ridley and Another (Appellants),Mr Brown owned a piece of land in Consett, County Durham, which he purchased in September 2002. 

Mr and Mrs Ridley owned an adjacent plot of land, purchased in July 2004. The dispute centred on a strip of land enclosed by a fence and hedge, which the Ridleys used — believing that it was theirs — 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, leading to a series of legal battles that ended up in the Supreme Court.

The ten-year ‘reasonable belief’ dilemma

The central issue at play here was whether the ten-year period of reasonable belief (referred to under ground 3 above) must either:

• End exactly on the date at which the person applies for ownership (Construction A).
• Be any continuous ten years within the total time they’ve possessed the land (Construction B).

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of Mr and Mrs Ridley — allowing them to be registered as owners of the disputed land. 

The court favoured Construction B, which adopted a more flexible interpretation of the reasonable belief requirement, making it practical for applicants to obtain registered title through adverse possession. The Court found Construction A to be too strict and unrealistic because people need time to prepare their application after they stop believing that they own the land.

Impact on future adverse possession claims

This judgment impacts future adverse possession claims — especially in boundary disputes — by clarifying that the ten-year reasonable belief period doesn’t need to end on the application date. 

This decision allows parties time to attempt resolution of boundary disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods and provides a clearer framework under the Land Registration Act 2002.

Talk to us

Our team of specialist property litigators has significant experience in resolving property disputes including adverse possession.

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.