Vinesh Anilkmar Kotecha & Anor v Peter Quentin Carroll & Anor

Vinesh Anilkmar Kotecha & Anor v Peter Quentin Carroll & Anor

Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient degree of physical control or intention to possess the disputed land; evidence showed respondents accessed and maintained the land, and applicants' maintenance was trivial or equivocal. Continued existence of the fence was insufficient given respondents' paper title and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Vinesh Anilkumar Kotecha; Applicant: Umesh Anilkumar Kotecha; Respondent: Peter Quentin Carroll; Respondent: Eva Brenda Carroll
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Land Registration Reference / Final Determination of ADV1 Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Boundary Disputes, Jurisdiction, Schedule 6 Land Registration Act 2002
Property Law Land Registration Adverse Possession Boundary Disputes Jurisdiction Schedule 6 Land Registration Act 2002

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinesh Anilkumar Kotecha

Applicant

Umesh Anilkumar Kotecha

Applicant

Peter Quentin Carroll

Respondent

Eva Brenda Carroll

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Registration Reference / Final Determination of ADV1 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants demonstrated adverse possession of disputed land for ten years
  2. 2 Whether applicants had factual possession and intention to possess
  3. 3 Whether applicants reasonably believed they owned the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient degree of physical control or intention to possess the disputed land; evidence showed respondents accessed and maintained the land, and applicants' maintenance was trivial or equivocal. Continued existence of the fence was insufficient given respondents' paper title and gate access. Applicants did not establish adverse possession on balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Chief Land Registrar to cancel applicants' ADV1 application dated 5th August 2022
  • Applicants to pay respondents' costs from date of reference to Tribunal, to be summarily assessed if not agreed