Adverse possession, often referred to as squatter’s rights, is a legal doctrine in England and Wales that allows an individual to claim ownership of land they have occupied without the owner’s consent, provided they meet certain conditions. One such condition, found in Paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, requires the claimant (or their predecessor) to have had a reasonable belief for at least ten years that the land rightfully belonged to them, ending on the date the application for ownership is made.
The precedent set by Zarb v Parry [2012] 1 WLR 1240 interpreted this rule strictly: the ten-year period of belief must conclude on the exact day of the application.
This strict interpretation created practical challenges. Firstly, applicants had to act quickly – any delay after realizing they no longer reasonably believed they owned the land could jeopardize their claim. Secondly, this urgency could push both property owners and claimants into immediate and potentially expensive legal battles, often before either side could seek legal advice or explore resolution options.
Ridley v Brown
A turning point came with the Supreme Court’s decision on 26 February 2025 in Ridley v Brown [2025] UKSC 7, which reinterpreted the rule more leniently. The story begins in October 2019, when Mr Brown discovered that his neighbours, the Ridleys, were constructing a house on part of his land. The Ridleys applied for ownership in December 2019, claiming that they had met the conditions set in the 2002 Act as they had possessed the land since 2004 and reasonably believed it was theirs until February 2018.
However, there was a gap of about 21 months between the ending of the 14-year period of reasonable belief and the date that the Ridleys made their application. The Supreme Court was then asked to decide whether the Ridleys could register their ownership under the 2002 Act. By considering the purpose of the 2002 Act and both parties’ arguments, the Supreme Court firmly and unanimously ruled that the law does not require the ten-year period of reasonable belief to end exactly on the application date.
Instead, it is enough if such a belief existed for any continuous ten-year period during their possession, even if it ended before the application was submitted. This interpretation allowed the Ridleys’ application to succeed.
The Court further clarified that the intent of the 2002 Act is to prevent opportunistic claims by individuals who knowingly take land they don’t own—not to penalize those who genuinely, though mistakenly, believed they were rightful owners. A rigid interpretation could unfairly harm good-faith possessors who simply failed to apply immediately after their belief ended.
Our thoughts
The clarification made by the Supreme Court in Ridley v Brown is a positive development in recognising the right of adverse possession. It grants applicants more time to seek legal advice, assess their chances, explore alternative resolutions, and prepare for a claim—without needing to rush. While the ruling does not open the door to indefinite delays, it provides a fairer framework within which legitimate claims can be properly assessed and pursued. Going forward, the judgment is likely to reduce procedural unfairness and promote more balanced outcomes in land ownership disputes.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
