Brown v Ridley (Rev1) [2025] UKSC 7 (26 February 2025)

The Ridleys sought registration of disputed land adjacent to their property based on adverse possession. The key issue was whether reasonable belief of ownership must persist until the application date or merely for ten years within the adverse possession period. The Supreme Court held the latter construction applies, restoring the Ridleys' entitlement to registration.

Facts

Mr and Mrs Ridley were registered proprietors of land including Valley View in Consett, County Durham. A strip of land along the boundary with Mr Brown’s adjacent land was in dispute. The Ridleys had been in adverse possession of this disputed strip from 2004, initially using it as garden and later as part of the site for building a new house called Moonrakers. The First-tier Tribunal found that the Ridleys reasonably believed they owned the disputed land from 2004 until approximately February 2018, when planning permission enquiries revealed evidence destroying that reasonable belief. The Ridleys made their application for registration on 20 December 2019, approximately 21 months after losing their reasonable belief.

The Statutory Framework

Under Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, a person may apply to be registered as proprietor of registered land based on ten years’ adverse possession. If the existing owner opposes the application, the applicant must satisfy one of three conditions specified in paragraph 5. The third condition (the boundary condition) in paragraph 5(4) requires that: the land is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant; the exact boundary has not been determined; for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant reasonably believed the land belonged to them; and the estate was registered more than one year before the application.

Issues

The central issue was the construction of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6. Two constructions were possible:

Construction A: The period of reasonable belief must be at least ten years ending on the date of the application.

Construction B: The period of reasonable belief can be any period of at least ten years within the potentially longer period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, adopting Construction B.

Reasoning

Lord Briggs, delivering the judgment, held that Construction A would render the boundary condition practically illusory in most typical cases. When a squatter discovers they have no valid claim to ownership, they cannot reasonably prepare and submit an application on the same day. Professional advice, surveys, evidence gathering and legal considerations necessarily require substantial time.

The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the de minimis principle could save Construction A by allowing a short period of grace. Lord Briggs held that the need for one or two months to prepare an application was a matter of substance, not trivial or inconsequential, and the de minimis principle has never been used to extend statutory time limits.

On the statutory language, the Court found that the phrase ‘ending on the date of the application’ naturally describes the end of the period of adverse possession, not the period of reasonable belief. This interpretation was reinforced by the parallel wording in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6.

Human Rights

The Court rejected the argument that human rights considerations favoured Construction A. Given the substantial reduction in adverse possession rights under the 2002 Act compared with the previous regime found compatible with A1P1 in Pye, it was unarguable that either construction fell outside the UK’s margin of appreciation.

Implications

This decision clarifies that applicants seeking registration under the boundary condition need not maintain their reasonable belief in ownership until the very date of application. The ten-year period of reasonable belief may fall at any point within the longer period of adverse possession. This preserves the practical utility of the boundary condition for genuine boundary disputes, while still excluding those who knowingly trespass. The decision also confirms that Construction B provides a built-in incentive for applicants to apply promptly while evidence remains fresh, since they bear the burden of proving their historical reasonable belief.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal was restored, holding that the appellants (Mr and Mrs Ridley) are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the disputed land.

Source: Brown v Ridley (Rev1) [2025] UKSC 7 (26 February 2025)