1909 Holdings Limited v Paul Shaun Hollingsworth & Ors

1909 Holdings Limited v Paul Shaun Hollingsworth & Ors

Neither party demonstrated factual possession and intention to possess the Disputed Land for a continuous period of 12 years; the Respondents' use was limited and recent, and the Applicant's maintenance and alleged enclosure were insufficient and equivocal. The Respondents are entitled to first registration only of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: 1909 Holdings Limited; Respondents: Paul Shaun Hollingsworth & Deborah Jayne Hampson; Second Respondent: Mario Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Land Registration Reference / Final Determination
Outcome
Respondents' application allowed in part; Applicant's application cancelled; neither party entitled to first registration of the Disputed Land; Respondents entitled to first registration of the Agreed Strip.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, First Registration, Enclosure, Land Title, Boundary Disputes
Property Law Adverse Possession First Registration Enclosure Land Title Boundary Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1909 Holdings Limited

Applicant

Paul Shaun Hollingsworth & Deborah Jayne Hampson

Respondents

Mario Wood

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Registration Reference / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either party has established 12 years' adverse possession over the Disputed Land
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents are entitled to first registration of the Agreed Strip
  3. 3 Whether acts of maintenance or enclosure constitute sufficient factual possession and intention to possess

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party demonstrated factual possession and intention to possess the Disputed Land for a continuous period of 12 years; the Respondents' use was limited and recent, and the Applicant's maintenance and alleged enclosure were insufficient and equivocal. The Respondents are entitled to first registration only of the Agreed Strip.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application allowed in part; Applicant's application cancelled; neither party entitled to first registration of the Disputed Land; Respondents entitled to first registration of the Agreed Strip.

Orders

  • Chief Land Registrar to allow Respondents' application for the Agreed Strip as if Applicant's objection had not been made.
  • Applicant's application for first registration of the Disputed Land cancelled.