Alistdair Barclay Brown v Richard John Ridley & Anor

Decision date: 23 January 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 14 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned whether paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 requires the ten-year reasonable‑belief period to be the ten years ending on the (deemed) application date or may be any ten‑year period within the period of adverse possession. The Upper Tribunal held that the Court of Appeal decision in Zarb v Parry is binding: the ten‑year period must end on the application date, allowed the appeal on that ground, dismissed the Ridleys' cross‑appeal, set aside the First‑tier Tribunal decision and directed cancellation of the Ridleys' application.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The binding ratio is that a person relying on paragraph 5(4)(c) must demonstrate a reasonable belief that the land belonged to them for at least ten years ending on the (deemed) application date; where the Court of Appeal has expressly or implicitly treated a particular statutory construction as necessary to its conclusion, that construction forms part of the ratio and is binding on later tribunals.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judge below expressed practical and purposive reasons for reading paragraph 5(4)(c) as permitting any ten‑year period within the adverse‑possession period to avoid forcing an immediate application when belief changes; he also suggested Parliamentary materials and Law Commission commentary offer limited assistance. These points were discussed as persuasive policy considerations rather than binding law.