Adverse Possession – Clarifying timings for a claim in Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7

The Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgement in Brown v Ridley on 26 February 2025 clarifying the ‘ten-year rule’ surrounding adverse possession. Adverse possession refers to the process whereby an individual can claim ownership of neighbouring land that they have possessed for a certain period of time.

For more information on what adverse possession is, and the previous legal position, please refer to a previous Blog produced by my colleague, Lucy Ayoubi.

This blog focuses on the long-awaited Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Ridley which has not only clarified the legal position but has had significant impact on the future of adverse possession claims.

Facts of the Case

The case concerned a strip of land (the “Land”) which adjoined the Ridley’s property that they had purchased in 2004. Unknown to the Ridley’s the Land had been fenced off by the previous owner and the paper title to it was owned by Mr Brown, thereby forming part of the neighbouring land.

In October 2019, the Ridley’s were made aware that the Land was owned by Mr Brown. The Ridley’s subsequently made an application to the Land Registry for adverse possession on 20 December 2019 on the basis that they had used, maintained, and treated the Land as their own since purchasing the property.

Although Mr Brown objected to their application, the Land Registry referred the matter to the First-Tier Tribunal which sided with the Ridleys.

Mr Brown appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which, and being bound by the existing legal position established under Zarb v Parry, the previous decision was overturned by Judge Johnson.

However, Judge Johnson, disagreeing with the established case law in Zarb v Parry granted a ‘leapfrog’ certificate allowing the Ridley’s claim to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Judgement

The leapfrog appeal came before the Supreme Court 21 January 2025 with the legal issue of addressing the construction of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (the “Act”) which states:

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 that the land to which the application relates belonged to him.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether:

1. the period of reasonable belief must be a period of at least ten years ending on the date of the application (Construction A); or
2. the period of reasonable belief can be any continuous 10-year period prior to the date of the application (Construction B).

Although numerous arguments were advanced by the respondent, the Supreme Court decided:

1. To “reject the respondent’s submission that it is an underlying purpose of this part of the 2002 Act that applications should be made promptly”; and held
2. “that it would render it practically impossible in most cases for an applicant ever to be able to satisfy the boundary condition.”

In contrast to Zarb v Parry, which established that an applicant must have 10 years of reasonable belief of possession immediately prior to the date of an application for adverse possession, Brown v Ridley has established that belief does not have to continue up until the date of the application.

Legal Implications

The decision provides much needed clarity on the timing for an application for adverse possession.  The applicant is now afforded greater flexibility to consider their position and gather evidence and is therefore better able to obtain advice to assess the strength of their claim and whether it is proportionate to begin an application for adverse possession.

Additionally, the greater flexibility provides parties with the necessary time to negotiate and potentially resolve the dispute outside of the court. By providing a clearer framework under the Act, claimants do not need to rush to submit an application for adverse possession but can potentially engage in alternative dispute resolution before an application is lodged.

Brown v Ridley should also act as a reminder to property owners the importance of clarifying the extent of land that is owned early on. Landowners should establish the boundaries with neighbouring land and take action early to reduce the risk of a claim being brought, potentially saving time and costs for all parties.