Adverse possession – what's been happening?

In the past 12 months, there have been two adverse possession ("AP") cases in the Court of Appeal; and one, almost two, in the Supreme Court.

The law relating to AP has been relatively settled for some time, but these new decisions have 'redrawn' the boundaries.

Taking things back to basics, AP is the concept that a person can become the legal owner of property, if they have taken possession of that property for a sufficiently long period of time. Reference was made to it in English law as early as 1632 in the Statute of Limitations. More recently, the law relating to AP in England and Wales was codified by the Land Registration Act 2002 ("LRA 2002"), which set out a new AP mechanism, insofar as registered land is concerned.

According to HM Land Registry, more than 89% of land in England and Wales is now registered. Therefore, the AP regime in the LRA 2002 is the regime that will apply in most AP cases. However, it is worth keeping in mind that a separate regime does still exist in respect of unregistered land.

Against that backdrop, we consider a recent run of appeals relating to AP, which have clarified the way in which the LRA 2002 should be interpreted, and which provide guidance to practitioners when thinking about AP matters.

Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7 – when does adverse possession start and end?

One of the grounds for claiming AP of neighbouring land is that the ‘possessor’ reasonably believed for a period of ten years or more that they owned the land in question.

The point that the Supreme Court was asked to decide in Brown v Ridley was whether the requisite period of reasonable belief: (a) had to immediately precede an application to have the land registered; or (b) could be any ten-year period before the application was made. The Court unanimously opted for (b).

Typically, it is only once someone begins to doubt their title to land, or a third party acts in way to create such doubt (e.g. by asserting a claim to the land in question), that a person starts to consider whether they might have obtained rights through AP. At that moment of doubt, it could be said that they no longer have a 'reasonable belief' that they own the land in question. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, if the ten years of reasonable belief had to immediately precede a registration application, it would “drive people headlong” into disputes, as they would be forced to apply for registration as soon as any doubts arose in relation to their ownership. On balance, this seems like a sensible and welcome clarification of the law.

Interestingly, a human rights argument was raised in the appeal, pursuant to Article 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it was suggested that the Court should favour an interpretation of the LRA 2002 which would result in less expropriation (i.e. less scope for people to acquire title to property through adverse possession); and that by relaxing the rules relating to the ten year period of reasonable belief, it would result in more land being acquired from the third parties via adverse possession. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this on the basis that, taken as a whole, the AP regime introduced by the LRA 2002 reduced the scope for acquisition of land by AP, i.e. compared with the earlier regime that applied in respect of unregistered land.

Nazir v Begum [2025] EWCA Civ 587 – which interests defeat an adverse possession claim?

Another sub-heading for this Court of Appeal case could have been "when is a trust not a trust".

The case clarifies the rule in Schedule 6(12) of LRA 2002 which provides that: "a person is not to be regarded as being in adverse possession of an estate for the purposes of this Schedule at any time when the estate is subject to a trust, unless the interests of each of the beneficiaries in the estate is an interest in possession".

In Nazir v Begum, Mr Nazir's father had died intestate. Mr Nazir obtained letters of administration and was appointed the administrator of his father's estate. Section 33 of the Administration of Estate Act 1925 provides that an intestate's estate is held on trust by their personal representatives.

Mr Nazir sought possession of land that was owned by his father, as against Mrs Begum. However, Mrs Begum argued that she had been possession of the land in question for more than 10 years, and, therefore, had acquired title to it through AP.

Mr Nazir then argued that Mrs Begum could not have acquired the land through AP, as the land was subject to a trust, pursuant to Section 33. However, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Nazir's argument, and found that the exception in Schedule 6(12) did not apply in relation to a trust that had arisen pursuant to Section 33.

In particular, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the administrator of a deceased's estate was not a trustee in the conventional sense, as they held the property without distinction between legal and beneficial interests.

In support of its view, the Court referred to the wording of Schedule 6(12), which makes an exception to the rule that land held on trust cannot be acquired via AP where "the interests of each of the beneficiaries in the estate is an interest in possession". To extend the protection in Schedule 6(12) to the administrator of a deceased's estate was, in the Court's view, inconsistent with the framing of the statute, and, if Parliament had intended to extend the protection of Schedule 6(12), as argued for by Mr Nazir, it could have done so expressly.

As such, the decision in Nazir v Begum, has broadened the potential applicability of AP, to include cases involving land held on trust by personal representatives, where AP might otherwise have been excluded by Schedule 6(12).

White v Adler [2025] EWCA Civ 392 – whose actions can bind a claimant?

On the face of it, this is not a case about AP, but, rather, boundary disputes. However, AP and boundary disputes tend to go hand in hand – particularly where land has been in the possession of  a third party, as the result of a physical boundary not being in the correct place.

White v Adler was a case about boundary agreements, i.e. written contracts between landowners which clarify and record the physical location of a boundary between two properties. The point that the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether a boundary agreement was enforceable against successors in title, irrespective of the fact that they were not parties to the agreement in question.

The Court of Appeal held that, yes, boundary agreements were enforceable against successors in title, and that it did not matter whether the successors in title were on notice of the agreement in question when they acquired an interest in the relevant property.

In light of the above, practitioners ought to expressly ask whether there any boundary agreements in place, when dealing with conveyances, as it may be that a client might not wish to proceed with a transaction, if there is one.

Insofar as AP claims are concerned, arguably, a boundary agreement would not prevent a third party from acquiring rights via adverse possession. However, if somebody has gone to the trouble of arranging for a boundary agreement to be put in place, it is perhaps unlikely that they would then allow the physical boundary of a property to be infringed. That said, subsequent purchasers of the land might not be so vigilant, and so it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. In particular, the Court might be required to clarify the extent to which a boundary agreement can compromise or impede an AP claim under the LRA 2002 regime.

The unsuccessful appellant in White v Adler requested permission to appeal this case to the Supreme Court. However, permission was denied on 15 October 2025.

Conclusion

The above cases highlight that AP remains a nuanced and technical area of law, and that, despite the LRA 2002 having been in force for more than 20 years, new points and interpretations still arise, which require the Courts to step in and bring clarity.

Due to the way in which the regime in the LRA 2002 is structured, and the fact that registered owners will be notified whenever a person makes an AP claim, matters can become contentious very quickly. As such, it is advisable to get a good property litigator on your side, before starting any AP process.

This article was first published by the Law Society of England and Wales in the December edition of their Property in Practice magazine.