Our client was the respondent (the person whom a legal claim is made against) in First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) proceedings, where the applicant sought to claim adverse possession over a strip of land falling within our client’s registered title.
The applicant based their claim on having occupied the land for 12 years prior to October 2003, relying on historical evidence from their predecessors to substantiate their case.
We had not dealt with the matter from the beginning but were instructed very late in the day and only a month before the final hearing date. The client was dissatisfied with their previous solicitors and wanted us to critically review the papers and provide frank advice on their prospects of success.
When the applicant to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) first made their application, they made it against our client’s leasehold interest. The Tribunal had already ruled that if the applicant was successful, they would become the leasehold proprietor over the disputed land and the freehold title would remain vested in our client.
Given what was at stake and the lack of available time, we quickly assessed the evidence, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of both parties’ positions. Recognising the risks and potential litigation costs, we provided our client with clear, pragmatic advice on settlement options. With trial fast approaching, we also negotiated without prejudice with the applicants’ solicitors, seeking a resolution that would protect our client’s interests while avoiding the financial and legal burden of a contested hearing.
Through strategic negotiation, we were able to secure a favourable settlement and a significant reduction in our client’s financial exposure—while the applicants had incurred substantial legal costs, our client was only required to contribute a nominal sum.
This outcome ensured our client avoided the risks of an adverse tribunal decision and the significant escalation of costs that a full trial would have entailed. By acting swiftly and decisively, we achieved a commercially sensible resolution, allowing our client to move forward without the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation.
