Brown v Ridley and another

Facts

The respondent, Mr Brown, was registered on 20 September 2002 as proprietor of a large area of rough, undeveloped land to the west of The Promenade, Consett, County Durham. On 8 July 2004 the appellants, Mr and Mrs Ridley, were registered as proprietors of adjoining land that included a house called Valley View. The dispute concerned a strip running along the boundary between the Valley View garden and Mr Brown's land. It was common ground that the strip formed part of Mr Brown's registered title. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Bastin) found that the Ridleys had been in adverse possession of it at least from 2004 until 20 December 2019, when they applied to be registered as proprietors. They had used it first as garden and later as part of the site of a new house, Moonrakers. The FtT also found that they had reasonably believed the strip was theirs from 2004 until about February 2018. At that point the planning process for Moonrakers produced evidence that made the belief no longer reasonable. This left a gap of about 21 months between the end of their belief and their application. Mr Brown opposed the application, so the Ridleys had to satisfy the boundary condition in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002. Both the FtT and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) thought the more lenient reading of paragraph 5(4)(c) of Schedule 6 was correct. However, the Upper Tribunal held itself bound by Zarb v Parry to adopt the stricter one. The Ridleys brought a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.