Claiming land through adverse possession : Wake up call for landowners

A Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7 has changed the landscape for both landowners and those looking to claim land through adverse possession.

What is adverse possession?

Adverse possession is an area of property law which in simple terms, allows an individual (or entity) to gain ownership of land by continuously using it for a period of time. Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (“the LRA 2002”) if someone has been in occupation of land for at least 10 years and they are able to prove that they have used it as if they were the owner, they can apply to the Land Registry to be recognised as the legal owner provided they meet one of the conditions under Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002.

Paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6, details one of these qualifying conditions as being that the applicant must demonstrate that for at least 10 years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed they were the owner.

Case of Brown v Ridley [2025]

In the case of Brown v Ridley [2025] Mr Brown and Mr & Mrs Ridley were neighbours and their property boundaries were unclear. A dispute arose between them over a strip of land that had been mistakenly enclosed by the Ridleys and in turn led to their occupation of this strip of land for several years. The Ridleys used this strip of land as part of their garden and eventually built a new house on the disputed strip. After occupying and using the land for several years, the Ridleys applied to the Land Registry in 2019 for the registration of ownership of the disputed land.

The Ridleys’ application asserted they had acquired the land through adverse possession and they believed they were the rightful owners. Mr Brown objected to the application and amongst other arguments raised, cited that the Ridleys had not met the necessary legal requirements for an adverse possession claim because they were unable to prove they had a “reasonable belief of ownership” of the strip of land for the immediate 10 years prior to the application.

The Ridleys knew they were in occupation of land that was the subject of a contested boundary dispute with the Browns. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of the requirement under the LRA 2002 for a “reasonable belief” of ownership and whether it could extend to any 10 years during the period of possession or whether the reasonable belief had to be the 10 years immediately prior to the application being made.

Before the decision in Brown v Ridley the Courts typically interpreted Paragraph 5(4)(c) to mean that the 10 year period of “reasonable belief” had to be continuous up until the application date. The issue created difficulties for many applicants including the Ridleys because they had possessed the land for over 10 years but had only recently discovered that they were not the rightful owners. The Supreme Court recognised that it was not fair to penalise someone just because they discovered the true ownership of the land after a certain period.

The structure of the adverse possession process in the LRA 2002 expressly leaves applicants free to choose between applying for registration; or waiting to see if they are evicted; or waiting to see whether their neighbour sues them for possession. Given these are real choices to make in the real world the judgment suggested that the legislation was purposefully drafted to allow a sufficient degree of flexibility for the applicants in any adverse possession claim.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the reasonable belief of ownership does not have to cover the last 10 years before the application. Rather the reasonable belief of ownership can relate to any 10 year period during the occupation of the land. For example, if the applicant had been using the land for 15 years and believed it was theirs for at least 10 of those years, the same applicant can still make a successful adverse possession claim.

The impact on landowners

Landowners must stay vigilant and undertake a constant review and maintenance of their boundaries, because they could easily find that someone else has been using their land for long enough to claim it as their own. Unused or overlooked areas could be at risk of adverse possession claims. If a landowner suspects someone is using their land they should take action sooner rather than later, because the longer the landowner waits the more difficult it becomes to stop the adverse possession claim being unsuccessful. A court would be interested to learn what steps the landowner took once knowledge of the encroachment had been gained. A court may not look favourably at the landowner’s objection to any such application for adverse possession of land, if with knowledge of the encroachment he/she did nothing to remedy the issue.

Impact on Applicants

Equally the implications of the decision made by the Supreme Court are significant for applicants. They no longer need to prove that they believed the land was theirs for the entirety of the 10 years up to the date of the application, rather the applicants now need to show that they believed the land was theirs for any 10 year period during the occupation. This gives applicants the ability to wait and strategize over how best to formally gain adverse possession which leaves more uncertainty for the landowners regarding whether they should be seeking possession or objecting to a claim for application for adverse possession.

Resolving a claim for adverse possession through alternative dispute resolution

The Judgment in this case also provides a useful reminder that parties should seek to resolve adverse possession claims more cost effectively and formal litigation should only be seen as a last resort. The parties should open a dialogue as soon as possible with each other in a bid to resolve the dispute or at least identify the issues in dispute.

The parties should also consider appointing an independent boundary surveyor expert to determine the boundary or seek a boundary determination under Section 60 of the LRA 2002 as an alternative solution that could potentially save time and substantial legal costs. A positive that both sides to any adverse possession claim could take is that the Court’s decision in this case allows the parties more time to explore settlement options. The time pressure of having to issue a formal adverse possession application which can often make matters more contentious and difficult to resolve, can be delayed now.

We act for landowners and applicants on both sides of applying to the Land Registry for adverse possession of land and would be happy to discuss any dispute that may arise – contact propertylitigation@parissmith.co.uk. Visit our Property Litigation section of our website for more information on the services we can help you with.

We publish blogs and social media posts to give a general overview of legal and commercial issues, relevant at the time of publication, which we hope you will find interesting. Please note that legal rules often change depending on the specific facts of a situation. The law also changes over time following changes in legislation or new court cases. We do not actively update our blogs or posts once they are published to reflect changes in the law.