Supreme Court clarifies adverse possession law in Ridley v Brown

A recent decision from the UK Supreme Court has provided helpful guidance on the rules surrounding adverse possession — and a timely reminder of the importance of resolving property disputes sensibly and proportionately.

In Ridley v Brown [2025] UKSC 7, the Court considered a dispute involving a narrow strip of land between two neighbouring properties. Mr and Mrs Ridley had occupied and maintained the land as part of their garden for more than a decade, genuinely believing it formed part of their property. Only when they sought planning permission in 2018 did they discover that the land was legally registered to their neighbour, Mr Brown. Although Mr and Mrs Ridley continued to use the land, they waited over a year before making an application to the Land Registry for ownership based on adverse possession. The case raised a critical legal question: whether (a) their belief in ownership had to extend right up to the date of the application or whether (b) a prior 10-year period of continuous belief was sufficient.

Key points from the judgment

• 10-year belief period doesn’t need to run up to application: The Court clarified that the required period of “reasonable belief” in ownership can end before the application is made. This allows property owners time to consider their options, seek legal advice, or engage in settlement discussions without undermining their claim.
• Litigation risks in small boundary disputes: The Judges were critical of the use of extensive, formal litigation being used to resolve relatively modest boundary disputes, particularly where the legal costs risk outweighing the value of the land in question.
• Encouragement of alternative dispute resolution (ADR): The Court also took the opportunity to warn against the financial and emotional toll of litigation, particularly where small slivers of land are involved. Lord Briggs emphasised that resolving minor boundary disputes through the courts often makes little economic sense, with legal costs far exceeding the value of the land. Parties should consider resolving such disputes through alternative means, such as mediation.

A practical reminder for landowners

For those involved in boundary or land ownership disputes, especially where adverse possession may be a factor, the case of Ridley v Brown offers clarity and flexibility. More importantly, it highlights the value of exploring all options before turning to the courts.

This case also stands as a reminder that litigation should be a last resort, especially where relationships between neighbours are concerned and the issues are capable of being resolved more constructively.

At Ashtons Legal, our specialist property litigation team can advise you on your legal position and help you take the most appropriate course of action, whether that involves preparing an adverse possession application, negotiating a boundary agreement, or representing you at a mediation. Contact our specialist property litigation team for more information.

Contact our Property Disputes solicitors today

If you have any questions about the points raised in this article, please get in touch with our specialist Property Litigation team by using our online enquiry form or calling 0330 404 0738.