A long-running boundary dispute in Leicestershire has ended in a legal defeat for a couple who extended their driveway onto a neighbouring garden to improve access to their horse paddock. Railway expert Dr Piers Connor and his partner, Professor Christine Pasquire, have failed to establish ownership of the disputed strip of land after a First-tier Tribunal rejected their claim under adverse possession laws. The case was reported by The Independent, The Telegraph and The Daily Mail on November 5, 2026. The disagreement involves a narrow, tapering section of land measuring up to 1.4 metres wide beside the neighbouring property in Kirby Bellars. Connor and Pasquire installed a block-paved accessway in 2017, intending to make it easier for larger vehicles to enter the paddock adjoining their home. Their neighbours, GP Dr Dawn Moore-Elphick and her husband Richard, objected to the development, arguing that the newly paved section encroached on their garden. By 2021, the disagreement had escalated, with the neighbours threatening to cut through and remove the portion of paving that extended onto their property.
The couple’s claim to the disputed land
Connor and Pasquire subsequently sought to establish ownership through adverse possession, a legal principle commonly associated with squatters’ rights. Under the rules governing registered land in England and Wales, applicants generally need to demonstrate at least 10 years of factual possession and an intention to possess the land.The couple argued that they had always understood the disputed accessway to belong to their property. They pointed to a large leylandii hedge that previously marked the edge of the neighbouring garden, saying they had regarded it as the boundary. They also argued that the area had been used by vehicles belonging to previous occupants of their home, with parts of the vehicles, including wing mirrors, regularly passing over the disputed section. An earlier covering of stones at the entrance was also presented as evidence of its historical use.However, the tribunal did not consider these activities sufficient to establish legal possession. It found that simply driving across another person’s land did not amount to taking control of it. Similarly, the earlier stone covering was not considered substantial enough to demonstrate factual possession.
Why the tribunal rejected the application
Judge Ewan Paton concluded that the couple’s qualifying possession of the disputed paved section began only in 2017, when contractors excavated the existing surface and installed the new driveway. This meant they had not completed the required 10-year period when their application was considered. The judge therefore directed the Chief Land Registrar to reject their request to have the disputed land registered in their names.The ruling also highlighted that the disagreement was fundamentally about access rather than ownership. The couple wanted a wider turning area to make it easier for vehicles to travel between their home and the paddock. The judge acknowledged that the narrow wedge was important to their preferred access arrangement. However, the tribunal heard no expert evidence establishing whether losing the section would make access impossible, more difficult or simply less convenient.
Could the driveway have to be removed?
The decision leaves the couple without legal ownership of the disputed strip, but it does not automatically mean that the paving must be demolished. The Moore-Elphicks had previously threatened to cut through the paved section running across their land. Following the tribunal’s ruling, the future use of that portion of the driveway remains uncertain.Connor, who advised on the Channel Tunnel project, and Pasquire will have to contend with the outcome of the ownership dispute, while the neighbouring couple have succeeded in defending their claim to the land. The case highlights how seemingly minor boundary disagreements can develop into lengthy legal battles, particularly when changes to a property’s access involve land belonging to someone else.
