The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered an appeal against the cancellation of an adverse possession application over a small triangle of land beside a shared drive, which affects neighbours in boundary disputes.
Key facts
- Who: Owners who apply to be registered over part of a neighbour's registered land, and neighbours whose registered land is claimed.
- From: Judgment of March 2026
- Source: Elizabeth Roseanne Dobson & Anor v Alison Unsted & Anor [2026] UKUT 93 (LC)
In Dobson and another v Unsted and another [2026] UKUT 93 (LC), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) heard an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke sat on 23 February 2026.
Background
The appellants live at number 29 and the respondents at number 27 next door, in Westcott, Dorking, Surrey. The drive of number 29 joins the drive of number 27. The disputed land is a very small triangle, about 1m by 2.3m, between the edge of the drive and the boundary between the properties. It lies on a slope between two levels of front lawn. Concrete setts mark where the boundary crosses the drive.
The appellants applied to be registered as proprietors of the land, which forms part of the respondents' registered title. The First-tier Tribunal directed the registrar to cancel that application.
The question
Permission to appeal was granted on the ground that it was arguable that the First-tier Tribunal judge erred in finding that the appellants' actions and the conduct of their predecessors did not amount to adverse possession before 2018. The issues included the evidence, acts of possession, how an owner would use open land laid to lawn, and the absence of acts of possession by the respondents' predecessors in title.
The evidence
The appellants relied on their own evidence of mowing, turfing and planting, and on statements from earlier tenants of number 27. Some of those tenants said their landlady never suggested that number 27 owned land on number 29's side of the drive. One said he understood that the land belonged to number 29.
Mrs Chilton, daughter of the first owners of number 27, who received the house from her parents in 2000, gave evidence under a witness summons. She said she had never maintained the disputed land, had not noticed it and had given no thought to where the boundary lay. The respondents' own evidence related only to events after they bought number 27.
The First-tier Tribunal judge did not find parts of the appellants' evidence convincing, including an account of re-turfing the land in about 2011 and the evidence about when clover was planted. The Upper Tribunal said the decision was clearly written with care and was neither rushed nor unduly brief.
What this means for neighbours in boundary disputes
The case concerns a claim to a small strip of registered land based on how it was used, and the tribunal looked closely at the evidence of that use, including photographs and witness accounts from earlier occupiers.
Anyone involved in a claim of this kind may wish to check what documents and photographs they hold, and to take advice.
Sources
- Elizabeth Roseanne Dobson & Anor v Alison Unsted & Anor [2026] UKUT 93 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/93