Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor

Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor

The period of ten years during which the applicant (or predecessor) must have reasonably believed the land belonged to them, as required by paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, is the ten years ending on the date of the application for registration. This interpretation is binding...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Alistdair Barclay Brown; Respondent: Richard John Ridley; Respondent: Sarah Louise Ridley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Statutory Construction, Precedent
Land Law Property Law Adverse Possession Land Registration Statutory Construction Precedent

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistdair Barclay Brown

Appellant

Richard John Ridley

Respondent

Sarah Louise Ridley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of the ten-year period in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 for adverse possession claims?
  2. 2 Is the relevant period any ten years during adverse possession, or must it be the ten years ending on the date of application?
  3. 3 Is the Court of Appeal decision in Zarb v Parry binding authority on this point?

Ratio Decidendi

The period of ten years during which the applicant (or predecessor) must have reasonably believed the land belonged to them, as required by paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, is the ten years ending on the date of the application for registration. This interpretation is binding authority per Zarb v Parry. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not following this binding authority. On the facts found, the respondents did not satisfy the reasonable belief condition for the required period, and the application for registration must be cancelled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
  • The application for registration by the respondents is cancelled.