New "Squatter's Rights" Clarification from Court

"Squatter's Rights" is the name commonly given to the legal term "Adverse Possession". 

Rights of adverse possession allows a party to acquire ownership of land originally belonging to another without the owner's permission. To obtain adverse possession, the applicant must have: 

1. been in actual possession of the land;
2. intended to possess the land; and
3. have possessed the land without the permission of the landowner.

There are strict time limits governing when an application for adverse possession can be made, which have now been clarified by the case of Brown v Ridley, by the Supreme Court.

The Ridleys purchased a plot of land in 2004. At the time of purchase, a hedge and fence seemingly represented the boundary between their land and the land of Mr Brown. 

A dispute arose in 2018 when the hedge and fence were removed to prepare for the Ridleys to undertake building work, and it was discovered that part of Mr Brown’s land had been enclosed within the boundary established by the hedge and fence. This strip of land became the “disputed land”.

The Ridleys had treated the disputed land as their own garden since 2004, and intended to build a new house that would rest in part upon it.

In 2019, the Ridleys applied to HM Land Registry to become the legal owners of the disputed land under the principle of adverse possession, pursuant to paragraph 5(4) of Schedule of the LRA 2002 which requires as follows:

• the land to which the application relates is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant;
• the exact line of the boundary between the two has not been determined; and
• 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 related belonged to him

The First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the Ridleys, saying that they owned the disputed land because of the principles of adverse possession. Mr Brown appealed the decision to the Upper Tribunal. 

The Upper Tribunal found in favour of Mr Brown, relying on the precedent established in a case called Zarb v Parry. In Zarb v Parry, the court said that a party applying for adverse possession must have believed the land belonged to them for a period of ten years ending on the date the application was made. The Upper Tribunal found in favour of Mr Brown because the Ridleys had only discovered that the disputed land may have belonged to Mr Brown in 2018, approximately one year before the application was made for adverse possession.

It was then the turn of the Ridleys to appeal, and they took the matter to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court, were faced with deciding whether an applicant for adverse possession had to believe the land was theirs for ten years (specifically ending on the date of the application) or whether any ten-year period before the application was made, the latter of which being what the Ridleys were arguing.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Ridleys and they were allowed to keep the disputed land.

Get legal help with adverse possession case

If you are involved in a dispute about a boundary and someone has made an adverse possession claim against your land, or you want to claim land you have possessed for ten years or more, it is a good idea to seek legal advice as quickly as possible. Ascertaining whether land is yours or whether you have a claim over it can be complicated.

If you would like to speak to a specialist property litigator, contact us today to find out how we can help.