Adverse possession and registered land (Dowse v Bradford MBC)
The Land Registration Act 2002 radically changed the law of adverse possession in relation to registered land.
Property analysis: The Land Registration Act 2002 radically changed the law of adverse possession in relation to registered land. Although it allows an applicant to apply to be registered as proprietor after only 10 years’ adverse possession, the current registered proprietor can generally resist the application as long as the correct process set out in the 2002 Act is followed.
One of the exceptions to this however is where the land in question was adjacent to land belonging to the applicant, the exact boundary line between the two had not been determined and the applicant had reasonably believed that the land had belonged to them.
In this case, an attempt to rely on this exception to claim title to about two acres of land failed. The judge ruled that this exception only applies to cases where there is uncertainty about the position of the general boundary between two pieces of land. In doing so, he gave effect to the policy behind the 2002 Act to limit the circumstances in which a squatter can acquire title to registered land.
Written by David Harris, Professional Development Lawyer at Browne Jacobson LLP.
Dowse and another v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2020] UKUT 202 (LC)
What are the practical implications of this case?
The doctrine of adverse possession has always sat rather uneasily with the concept of registered land and its mirror principle – i.e. the idea that you should be able to tell just from looking at the title all the important details about a piece of land (including who owns it). That was why the Land Registration Act 2002 severely curtailed the ability of a squatter to claim title to registered land –the sanctity of the title register should generally prevail.
This case is significant because it gives clear effect to that principle. Unless a squatter can prove 12 years’ adverse possession of registered land before the 2002 Act came into force, the registered proprietor holds all the aces. As long as the correct process is followed, there are only three narrow exceptions where a squatter’s claim can succeed. Two of those exceptions were not relevant here – where it would be unconscionable because of an equity by estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the applicant and where the applicant is for some other reason entitled to be registered as the proprietor. The third exception was the subject of the litigation in this case and the judge gave it a narrow interpretation severely limiting its application.
Anyone advising a client on an adverse possession application should check at the outset if the claim will be dealt with under the 2002 Act. If so, they should check if one of the three exceptions may apply. If not, they should generally advise a client that the claim is unlikely to succeed.
What was the background?
Mr and Mrs Dowse (D) claimed in 2017 to be entitled to be registered as proprietors of approximately two acres of open land registered in the name of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council on the basis of adverse possession. The land (or at least part of it) was adjacent to the garden of their house. They claimed to have been in possession of the land since 1974 and, indeed, had had a prior application for adverse possession rejected by the Land Registry in 2001. They had initially used the land for grazing, but more recently they had placed a caravan and trailer on the land, stored materials on the land, grown hay on the land and they had made access to the land more difficult.
D’s claim was based on the exception in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002. This required them to show that:
(a) the land in question was adjacent to their own land;
(b) the exact boundary line between the two had not been determined;
(c) they had reasonably believed that the land had belonged to them for at least 10 years prior to the date of the application; and
(d) the land had been registered more than one year prior to the date of the application.
What did the court decide?
D claimed that the conditions mentioned above were satisfied on a literal reading of those conditions - after all, the land in question had a boundary with D’s land and so could be said to be ‘adjacent’ to it, the boundary had not been determined and D had reasonably believed that the land had belonged to them on the basis of adverse possession (they disagreed with the Land Registry’s rejection of their claim in 2001).
However, the judge pointed out that the cases where a squatter’s claim could still succeed under the 2002 Act were exceptional cases which applied despite the general hardening of legislative policy against squatters. You would therefore expect to find some clear justification for the exceptional treatment in those cases. On that basis, the judge rejected this literal interpretation and concluded that the exception only applies to land in the area of the general boundary between the applicant’s land and the registered proprietor’s land. He was able to do this by construing condition (a) to mean that the whole (or possibly substantially the whole) of the disputed land would have to be capable of being described as ‘adjacent to’ the applicant’s land. That is the case when the land in dispute is land within the general boundary area between the two parcels of land, but it is not the case where (as here) only a small fraction of the land in dispute adjoins the applicant’s land.
In other words, the exception only applies in the context of a boundary dispute - where there is uncertainty about the true position of the common boundary between two pieces of land.
Case details
- Court: UK Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)
- Judge: Justice Fancourt
- Date of judgment: 23 June 2020
This article was first published by Lexis®PSL on 24/07/2020.
Contact

David Harris
Professional Development Lawyer
david.harris@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 934 2019
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Section 106 Agreements: I’m not dead yet
Legal Update
Supreme Court will hear Worcestershire case on local authority responsibility for Section 117 Aftercare in April 2023
Legal Update
HXA and YXA failure to remove cases: Key considerations in anticipation of the Supreme Court judgment
Published Article
Combined County Authorities - Key differences to Combined Authorities
Guide
Devolution: a catalyst for long-term, positive change in local communities
Press Release
Law firm Browne Jacobson appointed to work alongside the Government Legal Department - the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Legal Update
Public matters - February 2023
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain — Government publishes consultation response
Opinion
‘Awaab’s Law’- a significant amendment to the Social Housing Regulation Bill
Legal Update
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Legal Update
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Guide
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s real estate specialists advise Chesterfield Borough Council on prestigious new development - One Waterside Place
Opinion
Will fixed recoverable costs in housing conditions claims see the light of day?
Online Event
Register to join our Academy: to Register your interest in our next Academy
Legal Update
Government introduces first Streamlined Subsidy Schemes under new regime
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise High Peak Borough Council on future high street funded acquisition as part of Buxton regeneration vision
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Legal Update
Public matters - January 2023
Published Article
What are freeports and what benefits could they offer?
Legal Update
Dangerous Dogs
Published Article
Reaching cloud nine? Public procurement for cloud-based services
Legal Update
Unlawful delegation of decision-making powers
On-Demand
The Subsidy Control Act 2022. Putting the new regime into practice
Published Article
How the Environment Act affects existing contracts’
Opinion
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
Guide
2023: Horizon scanning in construction
Legal Update
The importance of understanding the transitional provisions under the Electronic Communications Code
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain: positive for nature and an opportunity for landowners
Legal Update
Public matters - December 2022
Opinion
Is over centralisation hindering economic growth?
Legal Update
Protecting children and their data in the online environment
Press Release
Browne Jacobson helps launch new innovative council company network with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
Legal Update
Public Matters - November 2022
Legal Update
Dipping in and out of the Investment Zones
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Legal Update
Hillside – the end of drop in applications?
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s retail lawyers advise Wilko on its strategic £48m sale and leaseback of Nottinghamshire distribution centre to DHL
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
Published Article
Local authority duties: Up in the air
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.