Garden gnomes, good lawns and bad boundaries: adverse possession after Dobson v Unsted

A case in which a garden gnome has a starring role must be worthy of a legal update.

Dobson v Unsted (2026) concerned a very small strip of land between two neighbouring houses in Surrey. Legally it belonged to Number 27, but for years the homeowners at Number 29 mowed it, played on it, planted flowers on it and treated it as part of their garden. Their neighbours did nothing with it at all — until new owners moved in, removed the plants and installed a garden gnome.

The ensuing litigation saw the Upper Tribunal overturn the First Tier Tribunal’s decision, which had concluded that mowing and general maintenance were insufficient acts of possession. The case now provides good authority that even modest, low‑key acts can amount to adverse possession where they reflect the only sensible use of the land and are carried out consistently over time. 

Establishing Adverse Possession

A claimant must show all of the following:

1. Factual possession

This means exclusive physical control of the land, not shared with the true owner or the world at large. The test is practical rather than technical: has the person been dealing with the land as an occupying owner might, given its nature and location? What amounts to possession depends on the land itself — a remote field is not used in the same way as a suburban garden.  

2. Intention to possess

This is not an intention to own, nor an intention to steal the land. It is simply an intention to exercise exclusive control. In many cases, intention is inferred from conduct.

3. Possession without consent

If occupation is with the owner’s permission, for example under a licence or informal agreement, time will not run.

4. Time

For registered land, the relevant period is generally 10 years, after which the person in possession may apply to be registered as owner. The registered proprietor will then be given an opportunity to object. If an objection is made, the application will be rejected unless a statutory exception applies. The most commonly relied‑on exception is where the land is adjacent to the applicant’s own, the boundary position was uncertain, and the applicant reasonably believed for at least 10 years that they owned it.

Key takeaways for commercial property owners and occupiers

While Dobson v Unsted concerned a residential garden, owners of commercial properties (particularly portfolios) should take heed.

• “Unused” land is a risk

Small strips, verges, service yards, landscaping margins and awkward boundary areas are common in commercial estates. If they are not actively inspected or managed, they can quietly become vulnerable to adverse possession.

• Maintenance matters — even low‑level

Regular activities such as mowing, resurfacing, planting, storage or routine access may be enough to demonstrate factual possession, particularly where the land has limited practical use. The key question is whether someone is dealing with the land as an owner would, and whether anyone else is doing so.

• Silence can be costly

Doing nothing can be interpreted as giving up possession. If a third party’s visible use goes unchallenged, it may later be difficult to argue that possession was never lost.

• Licences should be documented, not assumed

Informal arrangements (“we’ve always let them use it”) are dangerous. If occupation is intended to be permissive, that permission should be clearly documented and, ideally, periodically reaffirmed to stop time running.

• Boundaries on title plans are rarely exact

Most registered titles show only general boundaries. Where sites rely on physical features such as kerbs, fencing, planting or surfacing, discrepancies can emerge over time. Regular boundary reviews are sensible risk management.

• Acquisitions should include a possession audit

Due diligence should go beyond the red line on the title plan. This is why we always ask purchaser clients to inspect and flag any discrepancies.  

• Prevention is far cheaper than cure

Once a potential adverse possession claim has matured, options narrow and costs escalate.  Early action (signage, fencing, licences or written objections) can preserve ownership with minimal disruption.

• Keep registered addresses up to date

Land Registry notices are sent to the address for service on the title. If that address is out of date, an adverse possession application may go unnoticed.

• Don’t rely on gnomes to defeat adverse possession

As Dobson v Unsted illustrates, symbolic acts, including the late arrival of garden gnomes, carry little weight against long‑term, consistent use. By the time the gnome is deployed, the damage may already be done.