Steven Michael Booler v Sarfraz Yousaf

For adverse possession under Schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, possession during a lease is possession as tenant and is not adverse. The court must therefore determine whether the disputed land fell within the demise. Lease plans and surrounding physical evidence may be decisive in construing that issue. A mistaken belief that land belongs to the claimant need not continue until the application for registration is made.

The appellant sought registration of a triangular parcel forming part of the respondent’s registered land, relying on ten years’ adverse possession. The First-tier Tribunal directed cancellation of the application because it held that the appellant’s mistaken belief had not continued until the application date. Permission to appeal was granted on that issue and on the relevance of leases granted to the appellant in 2011 and 2018.

Following Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7, the first issue no longer arose. The central issue was whether the 2018 lease included the disputed parcel by incorporating a Land Registry plan, or instead used the plan attached to the 2011 lease, which excluded it.

1. The appeal was allowed. The appellant’s original application was made out, and the Land Registry was directed to give effect to it.

2. The appellant’s mistaken belief that the disputed land was his own did not need to continue until the date of the application. That issue was governed by Brown v Ridley [2025] UKSC 7.

3. If either lease included the disputed land, the appellant’s possession during the lease would have been as tenant and therefore not adverse. The question depended on identifying the land included in the demise.

4. The First-tier Tribunal had accepted the appellant’s evidence that the 2011 lease used the plan showing the disputed parcel as excluded. The physical evidence supported that finding. The parcels clause in the 2018 lease was identical to that in the 2011 lease, and it was highly unlikely that the parties intended the 2018 lease to include the parcel when the 2011 lease did not.

5. The email relied on by the respondent was hearsay-based, lacked a statement of truth, and did not establish personal knowledge. The copy of the 2018 lease accompanied by the Land Registry plan was insufficient to displace the accepted evidence concerning the plan actually attached to the lease.

6. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the First-tier Tribunal proceedings and the appeal, assessed at £22,107.60 and £16,617.51 respectively, totalling £38,725.11 payable within 14 days.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 1 July 2024, Judge Simon Brilliant directed the Land Registry to cancel the application. Permission to appeal was granted on 1 August 2024.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeal was allowed, the application was held to be made out, and the Land Registry was directed to give effect to it.