[2025] UKUT 110 (LC)

With the permission of this Tribunal, Mr Kirkman appeals against the FTT’s decision. Mrs Kirkman was not named as an appellant, but nothing turns on that.

In his grounds of appeal, Mr Kirkman challenged the Judge’s conclusion, on the undisputed facts, that he had not had factual possession of the entirety of the Disputed Land, including the outside area and the Ashes Places. The essence of his case is that the Judge wrongly applied the law to the facts as she found them. He emphasised the very restricted character of the area and its small size and challenged the significance which the Judge had attributed to the absence of enclosure on one small part of the whole site. He relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pilford v Greenmanor Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 756 dismissing an appeal against a finding by the trial judge that a squatter had factual possession of land, part of which was unenclosed. The judgment of the Court was given by Etherton LJ and included this passage, at [27]:

“It was not necessary for the respondents to establish that the compound was enclosed in such a way and to such an extent that no one could gain access save with the permission of the respondents. There is no such legal requirement for adverse possession, as Ms Stevens-Hoare accepted. The respondents only had to show that their acts were sufficient to amount to physical custody and control bearing in mind the nature of the land.”