Kenneth Rowlands & Anor v Gregory Bishop & Anor
Decision date: 11 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 102 (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 concerned a First-tier Tribunal refusal to register parts of the Rowlands' garden as possessed land. The Upper Tribunal held that Mr Rowlands did genuinely and reasonably believe for the requisite period that the fenced land was his, and that an informal/oral boundary arrangement can suffice for the reasonableness requirement in paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6. The UT set aside the FTT's negative finding on belief and directed the registrar to treat the application as if the respondents' objection had not been made.
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 UT's dispositive ratio is that, for the purposes of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6, a claimant's genuine belief that land belongs to them must be judged for reasonableness on the facts and need not rest on a legally effective written agreement; an informal or oral boundary arrangement can found a reasonable belief. The UT also held that an adverse credibility finding is unsafe where it rests on flimsy inconsistencies and on matters not put to the witness in cross-examination.
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 UT commented (not as an essential ratio) that the disputed area, though larger than the "thickness of the general boundary," could still be regarded as "in the area of the general boundary" for the statutory condition. It also noted the absence of a statement from Mrs Rowlands but found that did not undermine the uncontested finding of joint occupation.