12 Days of Christmas 2025 – Day 3

Brown v Ridley and another [2025] UKSC 7

On Day 3 of our 12 Days of Christmas feature we deliver to you a Supreme Court case on adverse possession.

 

The Dispute

Mr Brown registered the ownership of his land on 20 September 2002 and Mr and Mrs Ridley registered their adjoining land on 8 July 2004. However, a strip of land ('the disputed land') lay between their properties, occupied by the Ridleys from 2004 onwards.

In February 2018, whilst seeking planning permission, the Ridleys uncovered evidence undermining their belief that the disputed land was theirs. Therefore, on 20 December 2019, they applied to HM Land Registry for registration of the disputed land in their name, relying on adverse possession. Mr Brown contested their application.

 

The Legal Issues

Under the Land Registration Act 2002 ('the Act'), a person may seek to be registered as the proprietor of registered land on the basis of adverse possession. However, if their application is opposed by the existing registered owner, the applicant may only obtain registration if they can satisfy one of 3 conditions.

The condition upon which the Ridleys sought to rely, contained in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Act, was that:

“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 relates belonged to him”.

As you may note in reading this, the grammatical construction of the above allows for 2 interpretations:

1. Construction A: The period of reasonable belief must be a period of 10 years ending on the date of the application.
2. Construction B: The period of reasonable belief may be any period of at least 10 years before the date of the application.

 

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously confirmed Construction B, confirming that the Ridleys' belief, lasting from 2004 to 2018, satisfied the requirements of 5(4)(c), despite ending 21 months before their application.

Whilst Mr Brown argued that Construction A followed the spirit of the Act – that applications should be made promptly – the Court argued that:

• There is no real purpose behind adopting Construction A, beyond an 'illusory' effect. Both are fit for the Act's central purpose: to exclude squatters who seek to possess land via trespass.
• In adopting Construction A, applicants would be expected to apply for registration on the same day that their reasonable belief is lost. Such interpretation fails to account for the need for professional advice, the compilation of evidence to support the 10-year belief, assessing the proportionality of cost and risk, and considering the impact on neighbourly relations.
• Construction B contains a built-in incentive upon squatters to register their ownership whilst the evidence remains fresh and arguable.

 

Significance

This decision brings welcome clarity under the Act. In confirming the adoption of Construction B, a practical balance is sought: the protection of genuine mistakes, whilst discouraging opportunistic trespassers, ensuring the law works to the realities of pursuing property litigation.

And now for your reward of a festive joke for reading this far: What do you call a snowman on its summer holiday? A puddle.