Brown v Ridley & Anor (Rev1)

Appellants

Simon Goldberg KC

Sam Healy

(Instructed by Ward Hadaway LLP (Newcastle))

Respondent

Stephanie Tozer KC

Brynmor Adams

(Instructed by DWF Law LLP (Liverpool))

Lord Briggs (with whom Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler agree):

1. This leapfrog appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) raises a single issue of construction of part of one of the conditions for obtaining registered title on the basis of adverse possession of registered land under the new regime established by the Land Registration Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act"). Schedule 6 to the 2002 Act ("Schedule 6") lays down the basis upon which, and the new conditions subject to which, adverse possession of registered land may be relied upon for the purpose of obtaining registered title, which together amounts to a much reduced role for adverse possession by comparison with that which prevailed under the combination of the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Limitation Act 1980.
2. In bare outline, a person ("S") may, by making an application to HM Land Registry, seek to be registered as the proprietor of registered land on the basis of ten years' adverse possession ending on the date of the application. S is short for squatter, but this does not imply that the person is squatting in the sense of knowingly trespassing. All it signifies is that S is in adverse possession of registered land without having registered title. If S's application is opposed by the existing registered owner ("O"), then S may only obtain registration as owner if S can satisfy one of three conditions, specified in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. The third of those conditions (which for reasons which I will later explain I will call "the boundary condition"), specified in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 is that:

"(a) the land to which the application relates is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant,

(b) the exact line of the boundary between the two has not been determined under rules under section 60,

(c) for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him, and

(d) the estate to which the application relates was registered more than one year prior to the date of the application."

(I have italicised the words about which the issue of construction arises.)

 

3. The question of construction to be decided on this appeal arises because it is common ground that, as a matter of pure grammar, the italicised passage in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 can be read in two ways, which I will call constructions A and B. Under construction A, the period of reasonable belief must be a period of at least ten years ending on the date of the application. Under the more lenient construction B, the period of reasonable belief can be any period of at least ten years within the potentially longer…