Brian Larman v The Estate of Gerald Ernest Linzell & Ors
[2024] UKUT 57 (LC)
Kenneth Rowlands & Anor v Gregory Bishop & Anor
11 May 2023
[2023] UKUT 102 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Neighbours Rowlands claimed part of their neighbour's garden. A court initially said no, but a higher court decided the Rowlands had a reasonable belief the land was theirs because of old fences and a past agreement, even if that agreement wasn't official. So, the Rowlands won.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Rowlands (appellants) claimed adverse possession of part of their neighbour's garden (Johnston Hall, owned by Mr and Mrs Bishop, respondents).
- •The disputed land was enclosed within fences existing since before the Rowlands' 1996 purchase of Woodlands.
- •Mr Rowlands claimed a boundary agreement existed between previous owners, but it was undocumented.
- •The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found adverse possession but rejected the claim due to lack of reasonable belief under Schedule 6, paragraph 5(4)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2002.
- •The FTT doubted Mr Rowlands' credibility and found the alleged agreement lacked legal effect.
Legal Principles
To acquire title to registered land by adverse possession, an applicant must satisfy one of three conditions in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 if the registered proprietor serves a counter-notice.
Land Registration Act 2002, Schedule 6, paragraph 5
A belief about land ownership doesn't need to be legally correct to be 'reasonable' under paragraph 5(4)(c).
Dowse v Bradford MBC [2020] UKUT 202 (LC)
An unwritten agreement about a boundary can have legal effect.
Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) allowed the appeal.
The FTT's credibility finding was deemed irrational and unfair as the relevant question wasn't put to Mr Rowlands. The FTT's conclusion that an ineffective agreement could not ground a reasonable belief was incorrect.
The FTT's decision was overturned.
The Upper Tribunal found that Mr Rowlands reasonably believed the land was his, based on the informal agreement, the long-standing fences, and the lack of prior challenge. The Tribunal substituted its own finding that the condition in paragraph 5(4)(c) was satisfied.