Land Tribunal Rules Against Adverse Possession Claim Due to Interpretation of 'Reasonable Belief' Clause

Citation: [2024] UKUT 14 (LC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision in the case of Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor ([2024] UKUT 14 (LC)) provides comprehensive analysis on the interpretation of the Land Registration Act 2002, specifically concerning adverse possession and the ‘reasonable belief’ component contained within it. The case centers around a boundary dispute, with the central question being the identity of the ten-year period required under paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Act in which a person must have held a reasonable belief that the land belonged to them for entitlement to be registered as proprietors.

Key Facts

  • The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Ridley, sought registration as proprietors of disputed land based on adverse possession.
  • The registered proprietor, Mr. Brown, contested the application on the grounds that the Ridleys had not met the requirements for adverse possession, especially the stipulation regarding reasonable belief in ownership.
  • The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) initially ruled in favor of the Ridleys, directing the Chief Land Registrar to process their adverse possession claim.
  • The Appellant, Mr. Brown, appealed to the Upper Tribunal against this decision, leading to the analysis of whether the FTT had properly interpreted paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

The case involved the interpretation of land registration law, applying several legal principles:

Statutory Interpretation

Key to the case was how the Upper Tribunal should interpret the ‘reasonable belief’ requirement under paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002. Specifically, whether the provision allowed for any ten-year period of reasonable belief during the time of adverse possession or strictly the ten-year period ending on the date of the application.

Precedent

The concept of precedent and whether the Upper Tribunal was bound by previous Court of Appeal decisions, particularly Zarb v Parry ([2011] EWCA Civ 1306) and IAM Group plc v Chowdery ([2012] EWCA Civ 505), played a significant role. The principles established in R (Kadhim) v Brent London Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board ([2001] QB 955) and confirmed in subsequent cases were employed to determine whether the Court of Appeal’s treatment of paragraph 5(4)(c) in Zarb was binding.

Human Rights

Additionally, the Upper Tribunal considered how the Human Rights Act 1998 might influence the statutory interpretation to ensure a fair balance between the adverse possessor’s and the registered proprietor’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Fact-Finding and Appellate Review

The principles guiding appellate interference with the first instance findings of fact were scrutinized. The Upper Tribunal referred to the limitations on appellate intervention as outlined in cases such as Haringey LBC v Ahmed ([2017] EWCA Civ 1861) and Re Sprintroom Ltd ([2019] EWCA Civ 932).

Outcomes

  • The appeal was allowed on the basis that the FTT did not adhere to the binding Court of Appeal authority in Zarb, which set the reasonable belief period as the ten-year period ending on the date of the application.
  • The cross-appeal challenging the FTT’s findings regarding when the Respondents’ reasonable belief ceased was dismissed. The Tribunal found no error in the Judge’s approach or evaluation of evidence.
  • Consequently, the FTT’s direction for the Chief Land Registrar to process the adverse possession claim was set aside, and the Application was canceled.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal’s decision underscores the strict nature of interpreting the ‘reasonable belief’ clause in adverse possession cases under the Land Registration Act 2002, giving precedence to the binding authority established in Zarb. In doing so, the Tribunal clarified the exact timeline within which an adverse possessor must have reasonably believed in the ownership of the disputed land to make a successful application for registration. This decision has significant ramifications for future adverse possession claims and stands as a clarifying point in this area of property law.