Court clarifies adverse possession rules under the Land Registration Act 2002

Supreme Court clarifies adverse possession rules under the Land Registration Act 2002

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Brown vs Ridley, addressing the application of adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002. The ruling provides clarity on the boundary condition for adverse possession claims, a subject of considerable legal debate.

The case centred on the interpretation of the 'reasonable belief' requirement in Schedule 6, paragraph 5(4) of the Act, which governs the conditions under which a squatter can apply for registration as the proprietor of a registered estate. The Court considered whether a squatter's reasonable belief in ownership must persist until the application date or merely for a ten-year period during adverse possession.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, favoured a broader interpretation, ruling that the reasonable belief need not persist until the date of application. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to allow adverse possession claims in boundary disputes, where the register is less conclusive.

In delivering the judgment, the Court emphasised that the boundary condition is intended to address situations where the register's general boundaries do not precisely determine ownership. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the balance between registered title conclusivity and the practical realities of land possession.

The ruling is expected to have significant implications for property law, particularly in cases involving boundary disputes. It clarifies that adverse possession can be a viable claim even if the claimant's reasonable belief in ownership ceases before the application, provided it was held for at least ten years during possession.

Legal practitioners have welcomed the decision, noting that it provides much-needed clarity and aligns with the practicalities of preparing an application for registration. The judgment also highlights the importance of professional advice and evidence in supporting adverse possession claims.

The case has been closely watched by property lawyers and landowners, as it addresses the complexities of adverse possession and its interaction with registered land. The Supreme Court's decision is expected to guide future cases and influence how adverse possession claims are handled in practice.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the role of adverse possession in resolving boundary disputes, while ensuring that such claims are not used to unjustly expropriate registered land. The decision is a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting registered title and recognising long-standing possession on the ground.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.