John Crofts v Valerie Jean Welsh

Permission to occupy land from a person who does not own it does not prevent possession being adverse to the true owner. The occupier may hold possession as the third party’s agent, but the land remains in adverse possession as against its owner.

An appellate tribunal should not interfere with a first-instance finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong or affected by an error of law. A First-tier Tribunal review is appropriate only where the ground of appeal is likely to succeed and the matter can be resolved clearly. A review hearing should not be used to conduct a general reconsideration of evidence or make fresh findings without first setting aside the original decision.

Mrs Welsh applied to register title by adverse possession to part of a field. Mr Crofts objected as registered proprietor of the disputed parcel. The First-tier Tribunal found that Mrs Welsh had exercised exclusive possession of the land since 1988 at the latest, without permission from the Pope family, and directed registration in her favour.

Mr Crofts produced evidence from separate Crown Court proceedings and sought a review. The First-tier Tribunal declined to set aside its decision but granted permission to appeal on whether Mrs Welsh’s possession had been pursuant to an express or implied permission from a third party. The central issues before the Upper Tribunal were whether the new material could be relied on, whether the factual finding about permission was clearly wrong, and whether third-party permission could prevent adverse possession against the true owner.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision remained in force and Mrs Welsh was entitled to be registered as proprietor.
2. The First-tier Tribunal had not granted permission to adduce the new material in the appeal. Its earlier order permitted that material to be used in the review hearing. The Upper Tribunal nevertheless allowed submissions on the material because Mr Crofts probably believed that permission had been given.
3. The finding that Mrs Welsh had not received permission from David Pope was a finding of fact based on evidence heard by the First-tier Tribunal. There was no basis for concluding that it was clearly wrong. The Crown Court ruling was a hearsay account of evidence given in separate proceedings and did not establish that the First-tier Tribunal’s finding was erroneous.
4. Permission from the owner prevents possession from being adverse to that owner: JA Pye (Oxford) Limited v Graham [2002] UKHL 30. That principle does not assist a person claiming against the true owner where permission was given by a third party. As explained by Sze v Kung [1997] 1 WLR 1232, the occupier may possess as the third party’s agent, but the land remains in adverse possession as against its owner.
5. The appellant could not rely on an alternative contention that David Pope had a better possessory title. There was no appeal from the First-tier Tribunal’s findings that the Popes did not own the disputed land and had no right to licence or let it. In any event, possession by permission of a third party did not remove the fact that Mrs Welsh’s possession was adverse to the title of Mr Crofts’s parents.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision directing registration of Mrs Welsh as proprietor was upheld.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): In January 2025, found that Mrs Welsh had acquired title by adverse possession and directed the registrar to proceed as if Mr Crofts’s objection had not been made. Following a review hearing in May 2025, it declined to set aside that decision but granted permission to appeal on the permission issue.