Given the potential, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in this case, for disputes about boundaries to "generate disproportionate cost, effort, dismay and hatred if litigated," those providing advice to clients on boundary disputes will welcome the decision in Brown v Ridley.
The case centred around the interpretation of the provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA) relating to an application for adverse possession of registered land, where a neighbour had occupied land belonging to an adjoining owner in the mistaken belief it belonged to them.
It is a requirement of the LRA, in these circumstances, that an applicant must have at least 10 years' adverse possession ending on the date of the application, and the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the words "ending on the date of the application" were problematic as they gave rise to 2 possible interpretations:
- The 10 year period of reasonable belief has to end on the date of the application so that an application must be made immediately after the applicant no longer holds the belief, or
- An application can be made at any time where the applicant has held 10 years' reasonable belief
The Supreme Court favoured the second, more flexible, interpretation, overturning a Court of Appeal decision which had concluded the LRA required an applicant to make an application for adverse possession as soon as they discover they do not own the land in question.
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the purpose of the LRA was to reduce the availability of adverse possession but not wholly remove it. It was of the view that the title register was at its "weakest answering questions about land ownership, namely issues as to boundaries" and in this context the adverse possession regime still has an important role to play.
A restrictive interpretation of the LRA was unhelpful as professional advice would likely be required prior to making an application for adverse possession and not something which could be put together in a short timescale. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that there should be any immediacy imposed on those making applications who otherwise meet the relevant criteria.
This clarification by the Supreme Court means those considering applications for adverse possession of registered land to regularise neighbouring boundary issues now have breathing space to consider the merits of an application before being forced to race to submit something, without reference to all of the objective evidence and criteria.
