Adverse Possession – What you need to know after Brown v Ridley
2nd May 2025
Author: Jill Benbow
Boundary disputes can be among the most stressful issues a landowner may face. One area that often causes confusion is adverse possession — the legal process by which someone who is not the legal owner of land can apply to become the registered owner after long-term occupation. A recent decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v Ridley has brought greater clarity to how adverse possession is interpreted, especially where the occupier has acted under a mistaken but reasonable belief that they own the land.
The facts of Brown v Ridley
The Ridleys occupied a small strip of land adjacent to their property. Due to the configuration of the land, they held the reasonable belief that it formed part of their title and had done so since their purchase over 15 years earlier.
In 2018, they discovered that the land in fact belonged to their neighbour, Mr Brown. The following year, they made an application for adverse possession. The First-Tier Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the Ridleys, accepting their claim. However, this was overturned by the Upper Tribunal, which applied the existing case law requiring the ten-year period of ‘reasonable belief’ to end immediately before the application was made.
A Supreme Court rethink
The Ridleys appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the Upper Tribunal’s decision. In a landmark judgment, the Court ruled that the ten-year period of reasonable belief does not need to end immediately before the application is made. Instead, any continuous ten-year period of reasonable belief during the applicant’s possession is sufficient to meet the test set out in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
This decision removes the rigid expectation that an application must be made immediately upon discovering the land does not legally belong to the occupier. Previously, any delay in applying would have brought the period of “reasonable belief” to an end — meaning the application would fail. The Supreme Court has now confirmed that this is not the case. Applicants are no longer penalised for delays, provided they can demonstrate a continuous ten-year period of reasonable belief during their time occupying the land.
What the decision means for Landowners
This clarification rebalances the position between legal owners and long-term occupiers. It offers greater protection to those who have possessed land under a mistaken but honest belief that it belonged to them — even if some time has passed since that belief ended.
It also opens the door for greater use of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation. With less pressure to make an immediate application, parties are more likely to explore cooperative solutions before resorting to litigation.
That said, the ruling does not remove the need for careful action. If you find yourself involved in a boundary issue or suspect that land you occupy may not legally belong to you, seeking early legal advice remains essential. Delay can still cause complications — especially where memories fade or evidence becomes more difficult to gather. It is always best to have contemporaneous records and clear documentation.
How Butcher & Barlow can help
At Butcher & Barlow, our Property Dispute Resolution Team has extensive experience advising on adverse possession claims and boundary disputes. Whether you are concerned about land you occupy or responding to a claim against your property, we will work with you to understand your position and recommend the most appropriate course of action.
If you are dealing with a boundary or land ownership issue, contact our Property Dispute Resolution Team today for clear, practical advice. We are here to help you protect your property rights.
The information in this article was correct at the time of publication. The information is for general guidance only. Laws and regulations may change, and the applicability of legal principles can vary based on individual circumstances. Therefore, this content should not be construed as legal advice. We recommend that you consult with a qualified legal professional to obtain advice tailored to your specific situation. For personalised guidance, please contact us directly.