What Brown v Ridley means for adverse possession

The Supreme Court decision in Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7 has generated significant discussion in the area of adverse possession. This decision will have a significant impact on individuals attempting to claim land through adverse possession, as well as on landowners seeking to protect their registered titles.

A quick introduction to adverse possession

Adverse possession is a quirky area of property law. In simple terms, it's when an individual or entity gains ownership of land by continuously using it for a long period of time. Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (“LRA 2002”) if someone has been in occupation of land for at least 10 years and they can prove they've used it as if they were the owner, they can apply to be recognised as the legal owner under Schedule 6 of LRA 2002. In accordance with paragraph 5(4) of the LRA 2002, the applicant must demonstrate a ‘reasonable belief’ that the land belonged to them for at least ten years before the application date.

The dispute in Brown v. Ridley

Mr Brown and Mr and Mrs Ridley were neighbours, but their property boundaries were anything but clear. A dispute arose between them, over a strip of land that had been mistakenly enclosed by the Ridleys, leading to their occupation of it for several years. The Ridleys had used the land as part of their garden and, later, built a new house on the disputed strip.

After occupying and using this land for several years, the Ridleys applied to the Land Registry in 2019 for the registration of ownership of the disputed land, asserting that they had acquired the land through adverse possession, and they believed they were the rightful owners. Mr. Brown objected to this application, arguing that the Ridleys had not met the necessary legal requirements for an adverse possession claim.

The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, where the primary issue to be resolved was the interpretation of the requirement under the Land Registration Act 2002 for a 'reasonable belief'. Specifically, could the 'reasonable belief' of ownership extend to any ten years during the period of possession? Or did it have to be the 10 years right before the application was made?

Before the decision in Brown v. Ridley, courts typically interpreted paragraph 5(4)(c) to mean that the ten-year period of reasonable belief had to be continuous up until the application date. This interpretation created challenges for applicants like the Ridley's who had possessed the land for over ten years but only recently discovered that they weren't the rightful owner.

The Supreme Court's ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the reasonable belief of ownership doesn’t have to cover the last 10 years before the application. Instead, it can relate to any 10-year period during the occupation of the land. In other words, if you’ve been using the land for 15 years and believed it was yours for at least 10 of those years, you can still make a successful adverse possession claim. The Court recognised that it wasn’t fair to penalise someone just because they discovered the true ownership of the land after a certain period.

This interpretation is much more flexible and practical, and it effectively overruled the stricter approach taken in previous cases, like Zarb v Parry (2011), which required the belief to be held right up until the application.

Why does this matter?

The implications of this decision are significant for both landowners and those looking to claim land through adverse possession.

• For Claimants: If you’ve been using a piece of land for years, even if you didn’t realise it wasn’t yours, the new interpretation makes it easier to claim ownership. You don’t have to prove that you believed it was yours for the entirety of the last decade—you just need to show that you believed it was yours for any 10 years during your occupation.

• For Landowners: This ruling is a wake-up call for landowners to stay vigilant. If you haven’t kept an eye on your property boundaries, you could find that someone else has been using your land for long enough to claim it as their own. If you suspect someone is using your land, it's best to take action sooner rather than later, as the longer you wait, the more difficult it could be to stop an adverse possession claim.

• For Property Disputes: The case also has major implications for boundary disputes. If neighbours aren’t keeping track of their property boundaries, this ruling could lead to more claims of adverse possession in these kinds of cases. It could potentially lead to more litigation, but it also encourages people to have clear discussions about boundaries before issues escalate.

The ruling in Brown v Ridley has reshaped the landscape of adverse possession claims, offering greater flexibility for those seeking to claim ownership of land through long-term occupation. As this case demonstrates, property owners should remain vigilant about potential boundary disputes and claims to their land. The interpretation of the 'reasonable belief' requirement now allows for a broader range of adverse possession claims, which could have significant consequences for landowners.

Adverse possession is something we see a lot of in the context of rural land.  Quite often distant corners of fields or farms can be overlooked and be the subject of claims by neighbours. 

For land owners, this case therefore serves as a reminder of the importance of regularly reviewing and protecting their property rights. Conversely, for those seeking to claim land through adverse possession, legal advice can be invaluable in navigating the complexities of the process.

Our Farms Estates and Rural Land Team can assist both in defending against adverse possession claims and in advising on how to make a successful claim. If there is any uncertainty regarding boundaries or the use of land, it is advisable to consult with a specialist to ensure your rights are properly protected.

Listen to our Experts in the Field podcast for more insights on important issues for rural businesses.