Adverse Possession: Key Lessons from Dobson v Unsted (2026)

Adverse possession is the legal process by which a person occupying land can acquire legal title to it after a prescribed period of possession. To do so, they must submit an application to HM Land Registry supported by appropriate evidence demonstrating their entitlement.

For registered land, an applicant will generally need to show at least 10 years of continuous possession and prove three key elements:

• Factual possession of the land
• An intention to possess the land
• Possession without the owner’s consent and without secrecy

A recent Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) decision, Dobson v Unsted (2026), has provided further clarification on how these principles are applied in practice. The judgment overturned an earlier decision of the First-tier Tribunal and offers useful guidance on what is required for a successful adverse possession claim.

The Facts

The dispute arose between neighbouring property owners.

• The Dobsons owned No. 29.
• The Unsteds owned No. 27.
• The disputed land was a small triangular grassed area situated between a shared driveway and the legal boundary of No. 27.

For many years, the owners of No. 29 maintained the area, treating it as part of their garden and planting wildflowers there. After moving into No. 27 in 2022, the Unsteds removed the wildflowers and placed a garden gnome on the land, asserting that it formed part of their property.

The case centred on whether the Dobsons’ long-term use and maintenance of the area amounted to adverse possession.

Factual Possession

The Tribunal reaffirmed that factual possession can be established where a claimant has dealt with the land in the same way that a reasonable owner would.

Importantly, the Tribunal recognised that ownership of a small residential grassed area is often demonstrated through routine maintenance and garden use rather than more obvious forms of control. The Dobsons had maintained the land over many years, cared for it as part of their garden and planted wildflowers on the area. These acts were considered sufficient evidence of factual possession.

The judgment also confirmed that fencing or enclosing land is not always necessary. Consistent acts of possession may be enough provided they are appropriate to the nature and character of the land in question.

Intention to Possess

A claimant must also demonstrate an intention to possess the land. This does not require an intention to own the land legally, but rather an intention to exercise exclusive control over it.

The Tribunal found that the Dobsons’ conduct clearly demonstrated such an intention. By maintaining the area, incorporating it into their garden and treating it as their own over an extended period, they showed an intention to possess the land and to exclude others from using it.

The Unsteds’ later attempt to reassert ownership by placing a garden gnome on the land was insufficient to defeat the intention to possess that had already accrued through the Dobsons’ longstanding occupation and use.

Possession Without Consent

The third requirement for adverse possession is that occupation must be without the true owner’s permission.

In this case, there was no evidence that the owners of No. 27 had granted a licence, permission or consent for the use of the land. Equally, there had been no objection to the Dobsons’ use of the area over the relevant period.

As a result, the Tribunal had little difficulty concluding that the possession had been without consent.

Key Takeaways

The decision in Dobson v Unsted highlights that adverse possession claims will be assessed in the context of the land being occupied. For small areas of residential land, everyday acts such as mowing grass, maintaining boundaries, planting flowers and incorporating land into a garden may be sufficient to establish factual possession and an intention to possess.

The case also reinforces that fencing or physically enclosing land is not always required. What matters is whether the claimant’s actions demonstrate the degree of control and exclusivity that a reasonable owner would be expected to exercise over the land.

For property owners, the judgment serves as an important reminder to monitor and challenge unauthorised use of land where appropriate. Conversely, for those seeking to establish title through adverse possession, it demonstrates the importance of evidencing long-term, consistent and exclusive use of the land in question.