John Crofts v Valerie Jean Welsh
Decision date: 2 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 35 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 concerns whether Mrs Welsh had acquired title by adverse possession to part of a single field (including Disputed Land) and whether new Crown Court material and a statutory declaration undermined the FTT’s finding that she had occupied without permission. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT had intended the new material for a review hearing rather than for use on appeal, found no clear error in the FTT’s factual finding that there was no permission from the Popes, and treated the Crown Court ruling as of limited probative value. The FTT’s January 2025 decision was not set aside, but permission to appeal was granted on the discrete issue whether Mrs Welsh’s possession was by licence or permission of another.
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
A tribunal’s decision to permit new evidence for the purpose of a review hearing does not by itself constitute permission to adduce that evidence on appeal; and appellate interference with primary fact‑finding about permission in possession cases requires a clear showing of error—corroborative hearsay (such as a Crown Court judge’s recounting of witness statements) may be insufficient to establish such error.
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 Upper Tribunal observed that a Crown Court judge’s ruling that recounts witness evidence in criminal proceedings can amount to hearsay and be of limited weight in subsequent civil property proceedings; and that review hearings should be used cautiously where the new material does not plainly make success on appeal likely, to avoid wasting time and costs.