Gnome Man’s Land: Dobson v Unsted

In this Newsflash episode, Lizzie and Richard explore Dobson & Anor v Unsted & Anor [2026] a case from the Upper Tribunal that has been making headlines. At the centre of the dispute is eight feet of lawn and a garden gnome that helped spark a neighbourly conflict.

The case turns on the doctrine of adverse possession, which allows someone to claim ownership of land if they have possessed and treated it as their own for a set period of time.

Richard analyses how much use is enough, does mowing and maintaining a strip of grass amount to possession and what is the significance of planting clover?

Join us as we unpack the facts, the law, and what this surprisingly dramatic dispute over a small patch of grass tells us about adverse possession, particularly when it comes to unregistered land.

Other cases mentioned:

• Clapham v Narga [2024]
• Thorpe v Frank & Anor [2019] 
• Kirkman v Bradshaw Pub Company [2025]

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Transcript

Lizzie Collin
Picture a quiet residential St, neatly trimmed lawns and a tiny strip of grass barely 8 feet wide, harmless until a garden gnome appears, and suddenly that little patch of lawn becomes the centre of a legal dispute. Welcome to the unpacking the Case podcast by David Jones. Bold. In today's episode, we're digging into a fascinating. Property disputes that's been making headlines. Dobson and another and Unstead from March 2026. A decision from the Upper tribunal. This case is about adverse possession, sometimes known as squatters rights. That's the idea that somebody can claim land as their own if they've treated it like their property for long enough. In this dispute, a couple argued that years of mowing, tending and cultivating A narrow strip of grass meant it had effectively become part of their garden. Their neighbour disagreed and strategically placed a garden gnome, which added fuel to the fire. The story quickly captured the media's attention with the headlines about a millionaire. Up or using squatters rights to win ownership over 8 feet of lawn. Behind the quirky details, though, lies a serious legal question about possession evidence and how courts decide when use of land becomes ownership. In this episode, we'll unpack what actually happened in this case and why the upper tribunal wasn't convinced by claims that herbs like Clover had been planted years earlier, and what this case can tell us about adverse possession. Especially when it comes to unregistered land. 

Hello Richard.

Richard Snape
Hello Lizzie. How are you? Well, I'm OK.

Lizzie Collin

Are. Ohh jinx padlock. Yeah, I'm good as well. And so we're here to talk about a, a newsworthy case. It was in the news last week, and it's an upper tribunal decision from the 2nd of March called Dobson and another and Unstead. And it's about something we talked about quite a lot in the webinars and podcasts which is adverse possession in registered land. So do you want to start with giving us some background facts? To the case.

Richard Snape
Yes, Lizzie. Yeah. Yes. Another adverse possession case. It seems to be a lot this last year or so, starting off with with this Clapper and not a, he did a podcast on 2024 and that Brown and Ridley Supreme Court case from the end of February last year and quite a lot of others. It's Dobson and another is another. There's Mr Pleming POENING. And as you mentioned, it was in the news, it was on, certainly the Telegraph and it was on the BBC and a few other places besides last week. It's amazing that you know, everything happening in the world at the moment and this adverse possession case and Dorking gets to be a national news story, but anyway. Was giving you in place anyway. It was Westcott Hill in Dorking and originally the the the two properties were in common ownership until 1994 when there was a conveyance of these two separate properties #29 and #27. And the conveyance from 1994, which the stately where the boundaries were. But it seems to be it was a strange sort of setup you're able to see from the the news articles you know sort of what the layout was. #29 had an easement of access across #20 sevens land. They got shared access, but it seems that the other side of the and they got open plan lawns going down to the highway and and the other side of the the Accessway, which is again in #20 Sevens. Title with a piece of land which was 1 metre by 2.3 metres. So a very small piece of land, which if you looked at the photos and likes it, would look as if it was in the land of 29, but it was actually within 27, but no one seemed to realise this fact. And two people bought the two properties, including Mr Curran, who bought #29. And he seems to have sold on to a Mr Hewitson in 2002 and eventually the 2029 ended up in in September. I think it was the of of 2009 in the hands of Dobson and plumbing. This couple, they always assumed as so as their land, you know, originally, Cohen seems to have been sort of mowing the grass and mowing this piece of land as well. At the same time, the latest stage when Hewitson became involved, they were doing things like putting bins on this little piece of land. And uh before the UM. Jobs and and and planning bought the land they'd rented out #27 for a year and then bought #29. And they've been told by Hewitts and this is where you put the bins. And this is where the neighbours put their bins and you know, we sort of mowed the land and the likes. So that's what they were doing and they. Sort of progressively as time went on, it seems that the the owners of #27, they seem to rent out the property over time, didn't didn't take objection to this and didn't tidy the land or assert any authority over the land. Themselves. Then what happens is sort of typical creeping sort of claim for adverse possession. They have a fenced off the land that the tribunal sort of said that they they in in Congress it wouldn't look right to be fenced off, but they did things like they planted herbs originally Clover. Since we're big discussion about Clover and they tied it up the land they they raked the leaves off the this little piece of land and so and eventually you know sort of they seem to have put a a, A. The board your #29 sort of board in this corner of the land and let their children play on the land and planted wild flowers and change their topsoil and so on. But in August of 2022, Unstead, the Unstead's purchased #20. 7 and seem to have taken objection. Found out that this looks like it should be our land and so they pulled up all the wild flowers and put a garden gnome in it their place. And as you can imagine, that's going to cause litigation so.

Lizzie Collin
Yeah. And I'm sure garden names are responsible for lots of these things across the country, yeah.

Richard Snape
Especially in Dorking, but they. Them. They they dobson's putting a claim for, for our first possession. It's been registered titles since, you know, since section of these two properties back in 1994. So it's all about claiming adverse possession and registered land, but also what you need for claiming adverse possession generally. So shall I found a little bit about recap you. On adverse possession.

Lizzie Collin
Yes, please do.

Richard Snape
Well firstly, if it's registered, landing your claim arises from October the 13th, 2003, when the 2002 Landry St that came to us. You know why that? Was the date it came in Lizzie.

Lizzie Collin
No, please tell us.

Richard Snape
I've mentioned it before in course. It was the 50th anniversary of the then Chief Landers trial. It was to bring in, you know, the the the piece of legislation to celebrate his 50th birthday. Don't ask me how I know that. But anyway, if it's a registered land claim, well, we're basically claiming of the schedule. Six paragraph five of the language creation that in 2002, which requires there to be some adjacent land, there was some adjacent land. There's been no exact determination of the boundaries by the Land Registry under section 60 of the the Land Registration Act. There's a general boundary, so they've never been a exact determination you the land has to have been registered for at least a year before the application, but that was clearly the case. But the other requirement is that there's a reasonable mistake as the boundaries. And it was held at the first tier tribe. You know that there was a reasonable mistake as the boundaries. They genuinely and. You can see from the layout of the land if you see the photos and legs which you can't see on the podcast, you know if you just lived at this land. You would assume it was part of 29. They they were going to appeal that, but they dropped that part, you know, on appeal that so it was, there was no question about Schedule 6, paragraph 5. Applying that, there was a reason why mistake is the boundary. So it was all about what you need for a claim of. Adverse possession and. As you remember, Lizzie, you need a. The corpus possessions and animus procedendo I. Do you remember?

Lizzie Collin
Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Richard Snape
You need a factual possession and an intention to possess the land. A lot of people think of fencing as being the be all and end all. They didn't make much of fencing because they said that fencing wouldn't look right on. But they quoted some of the, you know, classic cases. They quoted pie and the grey. And in 2002 House House of Lords case, but didn't really go into that in terms of what you need for adverse possession. They quoted a case in 1977 called Powell and MacFarlane that said that if it's just. Sort of. Every day, you know, sort of tidying up land and maintaining existing fences on the facts and and they're cutting down Christmas trees as they recollect on this land and grazing animals on the land. That wasn't enough for adverse possession. But it all depends on what use the land can be made of. There was a case. Counselling Borough Council and the Borough Council and mentioned in in in 1997 the code over appeal case. Where their claims against the local authority and there was a piece of land at the end of their these people's guard. Which was just being used as compost heap and pulling up leads and tidying their likes and they could have said that in those circumstances the land is not really suitable for anything else than than the compost heat then pulling up weeds and there being an older case, Red House phones phoned in and catch call from 1977. Which was a piece of marshland somewhere, I think was in Suffolk that was accessed just by. A little bridge. And was not really useful for anything else, but what Catchpole was claiming that was shooting. They were shooting on this line what they were shooting. They didn't make clear. But they were shooting on this land and they successfully claimed first possession. So it depends on what the land is of use for. So that was that was some of the you know what the discussions around adverse possession were, shall I tell you the decision?

Lizzie Collin
Yes. What did they decide?

Richard Snape
Well, the first tier tribunal decided that until 2018 when the flowers were the wild flowers were planted and. Likes there weren't enough for adverse possession. You have to claim adverse possession and registered land. You have to show 10 years adverse possession in 2018 is not ten years ago, but the upper tribunal said that was wrong. They might. They said that any one of these acts on its own might not be enough for adverse possession. But you should look. Them all together. You know the fact that. You know that you mowing the lawns? There's probably not enough for adverse possession. The fact your children play on this land is probably enough. The the fact you've planted herbs and flowers on it. But when you look at everything together and also the layout of the land, it was enough. Doesn't matter that there's no fencing and so. On. But that was enough for adverse possession, so they succeeded that the dobsons was or Dobson plumbing in their adverse possession claim. And it got. Into the press.

Lizzie Collin
So why did it hit the press? What's so important about it?

Richard Snape
Well they were saying millionaire there's only about, you know, sort of succeeds. I think it's because it's just one metre by 2.3 metre piece of land and you know, is it really worth it? And no one had even bothered about this since 1994. I don't think the number 27 even knew it was there. You landed at all. And I say if you looked at the the layout, if you see the photos in the press and then the media, then anybody would have just assumed this apart at #29. Why people have to litigate and go to help and try and you know, I've not seen early days to see if. It's. Going to go to appeal, that's the kind of case that does. Yeah, like the Clapham larger case when late 2024 was, that was over 300,000 lbs in cost and that got into the media as well. Labour disputes tend to be a bit like.

Lizzie Collin
That, yeah.

Richard Snape
But the other thing is that they didn't really discuss it too much, but. A lot of people think that fencing is required and fencing isn't required. The fencing is very useful and very sort of strong factor. If you have fenced. But if you haven't fenced then it doesn't mean to say depend on the circumstances, it can't be adverse possession as a case called Thorpe and Frank, which I surprised wasn't discussed in the case. From 2018 from New York, a couple of 1960s semis. Where they were claiming adverse possession and succeeded even there was no fencing because it subject to restrictive covenants, it had to be kept open, planned. There couldn't be any fences. And do you remember Kirkman and the Bradshaw pub company? We did a podcast on last year. It wasn't. There was no. Well, it was fenced on all around apart from.

Lizzie Collin
Yeah.

Richard Snape
Where you access the lane and they didn't put putting the gate on because if they put a gate on, they wouldn't be able to access the building that they were clean of. Adverse possession of. Them so fencing is not the be all and end all, and no doubt will be in another adverse possession case before too long.

Lizzie Collin
Thank you very much, Richard.

Richard Snape
Thanks Lizzie.