[2007] EWHC 141 (Ch), 5 February 2007. The appellant development company (Hicks) appealed against a decision that the respondents (Chaplins') had acquired title to a strip of land by adverse possession. The strip consisted of a narrow ditch and a line of vegetation separating the Chaplins' driveway from a small housing development. The strip had originally formed part of a larger property which Hicks had developed by constructing a row of houses with gardens abutting the strip. The gardens were separated from the strip by a fence erected by . At trial, the Chaplins' case had been that the fence represented the true boundary and that, believing themselves to be the owners of the strip they had removed dead trees from it, planted fresh trees and shrubs and had generally maintained it. Hicks argued that the Chaplins' had been given implied permission to use the land and therefore they could not claim that there was ever a mistake regarding ownership of the land. "Held": it was decided that the respondents had never had implied permission and that the adjudicator's determination in favour of them was correct.