Adverse Possession

This case is a reminder of what really matters in an adverse possession claim and, in particular, whose permission counts. John Crofts v Valerie Jean Welsh Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) [2026] UKUT 35 (LC)

Case Background
Ms Welsh owns a farmhouse called Bank Hall Farm. To the south of the farmhouse is a large field which, on the ground, appears to be a single parcel of land. In legal terms, however, the fi eld was made up of three separate titles.

Over the years, Ms Welsh successfully applied to be registered as owner of two parts of the field through adverse possession. The dispute in this case concerned the third part of the fi eld, which
was registered to Mr Crofts’ parents and later transferred to Mr Crofts.

Ms Welsh said she had used the whole field for grazing horses since the late 1980s. She had installed a metal gate, kept it locked, and had the only key. She and her family maintained the hedges
and fencing and treated the land as their own.

Mr Crofts objected to her application. His main argument was that Ms Welsh had occupied the field with permission from members of the Pope family, who previously owned neighbouring
land. If that were right, her occupation would not be “adverse.”

The First tier Tribunal accepted Ms Welsh’s evidence and granted her application for adverse possession. Mr Crofts appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

The Dispute
The Upper Tribunal considered three main questions:

1. Was Ms Welsh in factual possession of the land, with the intention to possess it?
2. Was her use of the land with permission?
3. If permission was given, did it matter who gave it?

The Decision
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the First tier Tribunal’s decision.

It agreed that Ms Welsh had exercised exclusive control of the land for many years. The locked gate, sole access, and long term maintenance were all consistent with factual possession and an intention to possess.

On the question of permission, the Tribunal found there was no clear evidence that the Pope family had given Ms Welsh a licence to occupy the land. A casual exchange in which she mentioned keeping horses in the field, and was told that the other party was “not bothered,” did not amount to permission.

In any event, the Tribunal made an important point: even if the Pope family had given permission, it would not have mattered. They were not the owners of the disputed land. Permission from a
third party who does not own the land (or an Agent) cannot defeat a claim for adverse possession.

The Tribunal also rejected Mr Crofts’ attempts to rely on new evidence raised after the First tier Tribunal’s decision. There was no basis for interfering with the original findings.

Key Takeaways

• Control on the ground is critical. Long term, exclusive use backed up by physical control (such as locked access) carries significant weight.
• Not all “permission” counts. For permission to defeat an adverse possession claim, it must come from the landowner. Permission from a neighbour, former owner, or other third party is ineffective.
• Informal conversations are risky. Vague or friendly exchanges are unlikely to amount to a licence, particularly where they are not clear, recorded, or given by the owner.

This write-up has been provided by NFU Legal Panel Firm JCP.