Adverse possession and the garden gnome

Boundary disputes often start as something small, and Dobson v Unsted [2026] was no exception.

A 1 x 2.1 metres parcel of land sitting between two Surrey homes had for years been treated by the owners of Number 29 as part of their garden. Number 29 had mowed it, planted flowers on it, and played on it. In fact, the land was owned by Number 27, but those neighbours did nothing to enforce their rights.

In 2022, Number 27 was sold and although initially the use of the disputed land went on unchallenged, in 2023, whilst Ms Dobson of Number 29 was planting a Japanese quince, the new owner of Number 27, a Mr Unsted, challenged her. The following day, Mr Unsted entered the disputed land, removed the planting, exposing the bare soil, and installed a small garden gnome.

Ms Dobson and her partner – the applicants in the case – applied to HM Land Registry to be registered as owners of the disputed land. Mr and Mrs Unsted – the respondents – objected and the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal.

The First-tier Tribunal found in favour of the respondents, concluding that the acts relied upon by the applicants – mowing and general maintenance of the disputed land – were insubstantial to show possession. However, that decision was overturned on appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The case is good authority that even small acts – whilst they may be insufficient to show adverse possession in isolation – can amount to just that when there are enough of them over a long enough period of time.

Establishing adverse possession

To prove adverse possession, an applicant must show all of the following:

1. factual possession — they had sufficient physical control of the land;
2. intention to possess — they intended to possess the land for themselves, to the exclusion of others, including the true owner;
3. possession was without consent – they did not have the permission of the true owner;
4. time – for registered land the relevant period is generally 10 years, after which the person in adverse possession can apply to be registered as owner. The registered owner of the land will be notified of the application and can object. If they object, the application will be rejected unless a statutory exception applies. A commonly relied-on statutory exception relates to boundaries – the disputed land adjoins the applicant’s land and for at least 10 years the applicant has reasonably believed the disputed land formed part of their property.

Key takeaways for property owners

1. Small strips can cause big problems. Even a tiny piece of land can become contentious, especially where title plans and physical features do not obviously match. Where land is not actively being used and managed by its owner, it can be vulnerable to adverse possession. Regularly reviewing land and its boundaries will help manage this risk.
2. Too little, too late. In the Dobson case, the applicants used the land and the respondents for a long time did nothing about it. Inaction is a risky strategy if you wish to avoid losing possession of your land. Even seemingly insignificant dealings with land may be enough to demonstrate adverse possession.
3. Physical inspection matters. Boundaries shown on HM Land Registry title plans are not exact. Physical features and land beyond the redline should be checked on the ground prior to acquisition and any uncertainties should be investigated thoroughly and flagged to acquisition advisors ahead of exchange of contracts.
4. Agreements should be documented, not informal or assumed. Landowners should avoid allowing others to informally use their land. Permission should be clearly documented, to avoid possible future adverse possession claims.
5. When looking to defeat a claim for adverse possession, don’t rely on a garden gnome.