This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
Norton Rose Fulbright logo
  • Global
  • About
    • Back
    • About
    • Our firm
      • Back
      • Our firm
      • Clients
      • Global coverage
      • Vision, culture and people
      • Governance structure
      • Risk management
      • NRF Transform
      • Alumni
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
      • Back
      • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
      • Our people
      • Recognition
      • Governance
    • Corporate responsibility
      • Back
      • Corporate responsibility
      • Pro bono
      • Volunteering
      • Fundraising
      • Sustainable practice
      • Global charitable initiatives
    • Photo montage
      RE:

      Read our magazine
  • People
  • Services
    • Back
    • Services
    • Services A-Z
    • Key industries
      • Back
      • Key industries
      • Consumer markets
      • Energy, infrastructure and resources
      • Financial institutions
      • Life sciences and healthcare
      • Technology
      • Transport
    • Practices
      • Back
      • Practices
      • Antitrust and competition
      • Banking and finance
      • Bankruptcy, financial restructuring and insolvency
      • Climate change and sustainability
      • Consulting
      • Corporate, M&A and securities
      • Employment and labor
      • Energy
      • Environmental, social and governance (ESG)
      • Financial services and regulation
      • Information governance, privacy and cybersecurity
      • Intellectual property
      • Litigation and disputes
      • Private equity and venture capital
      • Projects
      • Real estate
      • Regulation and investigations
      • Risk advisory
      • Tax
      • Banking and finance
      • Climate change and sustainability
      • Corporate, M&A and securities
      • Energy
      • Financial services and regulation
      • Intellectual property
      • Private equity and venture capital
      • Real estate
      • Risk advisory
    • NRF Transform
    • Transform image

      Find out more
  • Insights
    • Back
    • Insights
    • NRF InstituteProfessional developmentResources and tools
    • PublicationsBlogsVideos
    • EventsWebinarsPodcasts
    • colorful light particles
      Sustainability and ESG

      Visit the hub
  • News
    • Back
    • News
    • Press releases
    • Market recognitions
    • Media information
  • Locations
  • Careers
    • Back
    • Careers
    • Graduates and students
    • Search current vacancies
      • Back
      • Search current vacancies
  • Change
  • Global
    • Back
    • global site
    • North America
      • Canada (English)
      • Canada (Français)
      • United States
    • Latin America
      • Latin America
      • Brazil
      • Mexico
    • Europe
      • Belgium
      • Deutschland (Deutsch)
      • France
      • Germany (English)
      • Greece
      • Italy
      • Luxembourg
      • Poland
      • The Netherlands
      • Turkey
      • United Kingdom
    • Middle East
    • Africa
      • Africa
      • Burundi
      • Kenya
      • Morocco
      • South Africa
      • Uganda
      • Zimbabwe
    • Asia Pacific
      • Australia
      • China
      • Hong Kong SAR
      • Indonesia
      • Japan
      • Singapore
      • Thailand
    • Regional practices
      • India
      • Israel
      • Korea
      • Marshall Islands
      • Nordic region
      • Pakistan
      • Vietnam
Lake in the forest

Connections

Insights, perspectives and viewpoints from our lawyers on topical issues

All Posts Subscribe
print-logo
3/17/2025 10:56:30 AM | 2 minute read

Supreme Court clarifies problematic point on boundary disputes and adverse possession

13

Get in touch

Avatar
Amy Allen
Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Real Estate

Get in touch

Avatar
Amy Allen
Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Real Estate
13

The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Brown v Ridley on 26 February will come as welcome clarity to those dealing with adverse possession claims and boundary disputes under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). 

Facts of the case 

Mr Brown, the respondent, purchased his plot of land in 2002 and the Ridleys became registered owners of adjacent land in 2004. A dispute arose in relation to a strip of land running along the boundary between the two pieces of land. According to Land Registry plans, the strip formed part of Brown's land, but the Ridleys had mistakenly believed it had formed part of their property and had consequently used the strip as part of their site for the building of a new property. In 2018, as part of the planning process to erect the new property, the Ridleys ascertained that the strip of land was not registered in their ownership. They submitted an application for adverse possession of the strip of land in December 2019, to which Mr Brown objected. 

LRA 2002 

Schedule 6 of the LRA 2002 sets out the process on which adverse possession of registered land can be relied on. Under this process, certain conditions must be satisfied. One of the conditions is that "for at least 10 years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application" the applicant must have had reasonable belief that the application land belonged to him/her. 

The main issue of the dispute being considered by the Supreme Court was the construction of this "10 year condition", which could be interpreted one of two ways: 

  • the ten year period of reasonable belief has to end on the date of application; or 
  • any period of ten years of reasonable belief within the period of adverse possession is sufficient. 

Mr Brown contended that the 21 month delay between the time at which the Ridleys realised the strip of land was not within their ownership (i.e., the point at which their "reasonable belief" ended) and them making the application for adverse possession meant the "10 year condition" was not satisfied. By contrast, the Ridleys relied upon the second interpretation, arguing they held a reasonable belief that the land was within their ownership for a period of 10 years before they made the application, albeit their reasonable belief was lost some time before the application was made. 

Decision 

The Supreme Court unanimously decided in favour of the Ridleys and the second interpretation of the "10 year condition", that any ten year period of reasonable belief was sufficient. 

The problem with the first interpretation is that it required a person to make an adverse possession application as soon as they learned that the property is not registered to him/her, which could lead to unnecessary dispute and litigation, which is not what Parliament could have intended. Consideration of boundary issues requires time, as people deliberate the situation and take advice on making an appropriate application - "an application for registration of title to adjacent land along an undefined…boundary is not something which can be put together in an afternoon". 

Aerial view of race horse stables and livery yards seen in the famous flat racing town of Newmarket, Suffolk, UK.  Seen near the famous Warren Hills gallops.

Subscribe to our Connections insights Sign-up now

Tags

real estate

Get in touch

Avatar
Amy Allen
Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Real Estate

Get in touch

Avatar
Amy Allen
Senior Knowledge Lawyer, Real Estate
Key takeaways from MIPIM 2025: Future-proofing data centres
3/25/2025 4:21:32 PM

Key takeaways from MIPIM 2025: Future-proofing data centres

By Kirsty Harrower
As the digital infrastructure landscape continues to evolve, increasing AI workloads present both challenges and opportunities for data...
1
36
37

Latest Insights

Greece enters the FDI screening arena: What the new law means for investors
5/27/2025 10:59:09 AM

Greece enters the FDI screening arena: What the new law means for investors

By Alexandra Rogers Angelos Vlazakis
66
66
"If you can't see it, you can't be it": Key takeaways from our Women in Aviation breakfast breakout
5/21/2025 2:13:41 PM

"If you can't see it, you can't be it": Key takeaways from our Women in Aviation breakfast breakout

By Georgie Field
Late payments under Polish Competition Authority scrutiny: Is your company compliant?
5/15/2025 8:31:51 AM

Late payments under Polish Competition Authority scrutiny: Is your company compliant?

By Wojciech Janik
14
14

Explore our site

  • About
  • Careers
  • Diversity, equity and inclusion
  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • News

Key industries

  • Consumer markets
  • Energy, infrastructure and resources
  • Financial institutions
  • Life sciences and healthcare
  • Technology
  • Transport

Locations

  • Global coverage

Norton Rose Fulbright © 2024. All Rights Reserved.

  • Amsterdam
  • ●
  • Athens
  • ●
  • Austin
  • ●
  • Bangkok
  • ●
  • Beijing
  • ●
  • Brisbane
  • ●
  • Brussels
  • ●
  • Bujumbura**
  • ●
  • Calgary
  • ●
  • Canberra
  • ●
  • Cape Town
  • ●
  • Casablanca
  • ●
  • Dallas
  • ●
  • Denver
  • ●
  • Dubai
  • ●
  • Durban
  • ●
  • Düsseldorf
  • ●
  • Frankfurt
  • ●
  • Hamburg
  • ●
  • Harare**
  • ●
  • Hong Kong SAR
  • ●
  • Houston
  • ●
  • Istanbul
  • ●
  • Jakarta*
  • ●
  • Johannesburg
  • ●
  • Kampala**
  • ●
  • London
  • ●
  • Los Angeles
  • ●
  • Luxembourg
  • ●
  • Melbourne
  • ●
  • Mexico City
  • ●
  • Milan
  • ●
  • Minneapolis
  • ●
  • Monaco
  • ●
  • Montréal
  • ●
  • Munich
  • ●
  • Newcastle
  • ●
  • New York
  • ●
  • Nairobi**
  • ●
  • Ottawa
  • ●
  • Paris
  • ●
  • Perth
  • ●
  • Piraeus
  • ●
  • Québec
  • ●
  • Riyadh*
  • ●
  • San Antonio
  • ●
  • San Francisco
  • ●
  • São Paulo
  • ●
  • Shanghai
  • ●
  • Singapore
  • ●
  • St. Louis
  • ●
  • Sydney
  • ●
  • Tokyo
  • ●
  • Toronto
  • ●
  • Vancouver
  • ●
  • Warsaw
  • ●
  • Washington DC *associate office **alliance
  • Legal notices and disclaimers
  • Impressum
  • Standard terms
  • Blog network terms and conditions
  • Cookies policy
  • Privacy notice
  • Website access conditions
  • Fraud alerts
  • Modern Slavery Statements
  • Health plan machine readable files
  • Anti-Facilitation of Tax Evasion Statement
  • Suppliers
  • History
  • Remote access
  • Sitemap
Offices and locations

Norton Rose Fulbright © 2024. All Rights Reserved.

  • Amsterdam
  • ●
  • Athens
  • ●
  • Austin
  • ●
  • Bangkok
  • ●
  • Beijing
  • ●
  • Brisbane
  • ●
  • Brussels
  • ●
  • Bujumbura**
  • ●
  • Calgary
  • ●
  • Canberra
  • ●
  • Cape Town
  • ●
  • Casablanca
  • ●
  • Dallas
  • ●
  • Denver
  • ●
  • Dubai
  • ●
  • Durban
  • ●
  • Düsseldorf
  • ●
  • Frankfurt
  • ●
  • Hamburg
  • ●
  • Harare**
  • ●
  • Hong Kong SAR
  • ●
  • Houston
  • ●
  • Istanbul
  • ●
  • Jakarta*
  • ●
  • Johannesburg
  • ●
  • Kampala**
  • ●
  • London
  • ●
  • Los Angeles
  • ●
  • Luxembourg
  • ●
  • Melbourne
  • ●
  • Mexico City
  • ●
  • Milan
  • ●
  • Minneapolis
  • ●
  • Monaco
  • ●
  • Montréal
  • ●
  • Munich
  • ●
  • Newcastle
  • ●
  • New York
  • ●
  • Nairobi**
  • ●
  • Ottawa
  • ●
  • Paris
  • ●
  • Perth
  • ●
  • Piraeus
  • ●
  • Québec
  • ●
  • Riyadh*
  • ●
  • San Antonio
  • ●
  • San Francisco
  • ●
  • São Paulo
  • ●
  • Shanghai
  • ●
  • Singapore
  • ●
  • St. Louis
  • ●
  • Sydney
  • ●
  • Tokyo
  • ●
  • Toronto
  • ●
  • Vancouver
  • ●
  • Warsaw
  • ●
  • Washington DC *associate office **alliance
Policies and disclaimers
  • Legal notices and disclaimers
  • Impressum
  • Standard terms
  • Blog network terms and conditions
  • Cookies policy
  • Privacy notice
  • Website access conditions
  • Fraud alerts
  • Modern Slavery Statements
  • Health plan machine readable files
  • Anti-Facilitation of Tax Evasion Statement
  • Suppliers
  • History
  • Remote access
  • Sitemap
Visit our global site, or select a location
North America
  • Canada (English)
  • Canada (Français)
  • United States
Latin America
  • Brazil
  • Mexico
Europe
  • Belgium
  • Deutschland (Deutsch)
  • France
  • Germany (English)
  • Greece
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Poland
  • The Netherlands
  • Turkey
  • United Kingdom
Middle East
Africa
  • Burundi
  • Kenya
  • Morocco
  • South Africa
  • Uganda
  • Zimbabwe
Asia Pacific
  • Australia
  • China
  • Hong Kong SAR
  • Indonesia
  • Japan
  • Singapore
  • Thailand
Regional practices
  • India
  • Israel
  • Korea
  • Marshall Islands
  • Nordic region
  • Pakistan
  • Vietnam