[2024] UKUT 14 (LC)

The background to this case is fully set out in the Decision. It is only necessary to give a short summary of this background, for which I am indebted to the Judge, in order to set the scene for what I have to decide in the appeal and the cross appeal. My summary incorporates, where necessary, findings of fact made by the Judge, but does not, at this stage of the decision, go into the findings of fact which are the subject of the cross appeal.

The Respondents are the registered proprietors of a property known as Valley View, The Promenade, Consett, County Durham DH8 5NJ. The Respondents purchased this property in July 2004 from their predecessors in title, Mr and Mrs Gailles. The Gailles, in turn, purchased the property from a Mr Shaw in February 2000, who had created the property by the original purchase of part of the property and the subsequent purchase of the remaining part of the property. Title to the amalgamated property known as Valley View, which I shall refer to as “Valley View”, was first registered by the Gailles, under title number DU234551.

In about September 2002 the Appellant purchased land on the west side of The Promenade, which was subsequently registered under title number DU255518. In common with the Judge, I will refer to this land as “Mr Brown’s Land”. Mr Brown’s Land is described as rough uncultivated land, which the Appellant purchased with a view to development. Part of Mr Brown’s Land is adjacent to the south-west boundary of Valley View.

Running along part of the boundary between Valley View and Mr Brown’s Land there is a strip of land (“the Disputed Land”) which lies within the boundary of Mr Brown’s Land, as the boundary is shown on the registered title plan for Mr Brown’s Land.

At the hearing before the Judge, in the FTT, the Judge heard evidence from several witnesses, including Mr Ridley (the First Respondent) and the Appellant. There were also witness statements from Mrs Ridley (the Second Respondent) and Mr Shaw, but these last two witnesses were not required to be cross examined. After an extensive review of the evidence the Judge found that the Respondents had been in exclusive possession of the Disputed Land since their purchase of the Disputed Land in 2004 until the date when they made the Application. The Judge found that the Disputed Land had originally been enclosed by Mr Shaw, who put up a picket fence around the south-western perimeter of the Disputed Land and planted a leylandii hedge just inside the fence.

In March 2018 the Respondents obtained planning permission for the construction of a new dwelling adjacent to the existing house on Valley View. The site of the new dwelling encroached into the Disputed Land and necessitated the clearing of the leylandii hedge and the picket fence, in July 2018. The new dwelling, which is known as Moonrakers, was constructed between June 2019 and October 2020. The south-western corner of Moonrakers is constructed on the Disputed Land.

In October 2019 the Appellant became aware of the construction work, and discovered that the Disputed Land lay within the registered title to Mr Brown’s Land. Following correspondence between the parties and their representatives, the Respondents made the Application, by Form ADV1 dated 10^th December 2019, on 20^th December 2019. They claimed to be entitled to be registered as proprietors of the Disputed Land, pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 6, on the basis of adverse possession. The Appellant was given notice of the Application on 15^th September 2020. On 9^th December 2020 the Appellant, by his solicitors, gave notice of his objection to the Application on the basis that the Respondents had not been in adverse possession of the Disputed Land for the requisite period and, in addition, required the Application to be dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. In these circumstances the Land Registry referred the Application to the FTT for determination on 18^th February 2021.