Brian Larman v The Estate of Gerald Ernest Linzell & Ors

For the third condition in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, the applicant must have reasonably believed, for at least ten years of the relevant period, that the disputed land belonged to him. A solicitor’s knowledge is not imputed to the applicant. New evidence may be admitted on appeal where the need for it could not reasonably have been anticipated at the original hearing, and where it is credible and materially influential. The appeal was allowed and registration directed.

The appellant had possessed a small triangle of registered land enclosed within his garden since at least 2003. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that he had reasonably believed until 2007 that the triangle belonged to him, but inferred from an index map search commissioned in 2007 that he then knew, or should have known, that it was outside his title. It therefore refused registration under the third condition in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

On appeal, the appellant relied on a statement from the solicitor who had commissioned the search. The central issues were whether that evidence should be admitted and whether the appellant’s belief remained reasonable after 2007.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT’s decision was set aside. The appellant was entitled to be registered as proprietor of the disputed triangle, and the registrar was directed to deal with the application as if no objection had been made.
2. The third condition in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 required the appellant to show that, for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the application date, he reasonably believed that the land belonged to him.
3. The former solicitor’s evidence satisfied the criteria in [1954] 1 WLR 1489. It was credible, would have materially affected the result, and could not reasonably have been obtained for the FTT hearing because the need for it arose only from an unforeseen chain of reasoning about the 2007 search.
4. The evidence established that the search had been commissioned for a proposed sale and not to advise on adverse possession. There was no evidence that the appellant saw the search result or was told that the triangle was unregistered. Consistently with IAM Group PLC v Chowdrey [2012] EWCA Civ 505, the solicitor’s knowledge was not imputed to him. His belief therefore remained reasonable.
5. The Tribunal noted that the agreed interpretation of the ten-year period was inconsistent with Zarb v Parry [2011] EWCA Civ 1306, and that the better view, identified in Brown v Ridley [2024] UKUT 14 (LC), was that the relevant observation in Zarb v Parry was not obiter. That issue did not affect the result.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal from the First-tier Tribunal was allowed. The FTT decision was set aside and the appellant was held entitled to registration.