Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor
[2024] UKUT 14 (LC)
Brian Larman v The Estate of Gerald Ernest Linzell & Ors
4 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 57 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone claimed a small piece of land they'd been using for years. A court said no because of a land search report they didn't understand. A higher court looked at new evidence showing the report was about selling the land, not about the claim. The higher court let the person keep the land.
Key Facts
- •Brian Larman applied to register title to a small triangle of land he claimed to have been in adverse possession of since 1998.
- •The land is registered as part of Sutton Hall Farm, owned by the Linzell estate.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found Larman had been in adverse possession since at least 2003 but his application was rejected because he failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 6, paragraph 5 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
- •The FTT judge found Larman's reasonable belief that the land was his ceased in 2007 due to a land registry search he commissioned.
- •Larman appealed, arguing the judge's findings were incorrect and his belief remained reasonable.
Legal Principles
Adverse possession of registered land requires meeting the conditions in Schedule 6, paragraph 5 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 6, paragraph 5
The ten-year period of reasonable belief in paragraph 5(4)(c) can be any ten years within the period of adverse possession.
Brown v Ridley [2024] UKUT 14 (LC)
A solicitor's knowledge is not imputed to an applicant for title by adverse possession.
IAM Group PLC v Chowdrey [2012] EWCA Civ 505
New evidence is admissible on appeal if it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the original hearing, would have an important influence on the result, and is credible (Ladd v Marshall test).
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The judge's findings regarding the 2007 land registry search were based on conjecture and the new evidence from Larman's solicitor showed the search was for a home information pack, not to advise on adverse possession. Larman's continued belief that the land was his was reasonable, as he was unaware of the search's results.
The FTT's decision was set aside.
The appellant satisfied the conditions in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.