When Brian retired from farming in 1986 he sold the registered title to Dewy Meadow, one of his fields, to Justin, a property developer. Justin made an unsuccessful planning application to build ten houses on Dewy Meadow. In 1989 Justin entered into a one-year licence with Rex who wanted the field as grazing land for his sheep. When the licence expired it was not renewed, but Rex continued to use the field in the same way. Shortly afterwards Rex renewed part of the perimeter hedge after complaints from Linda, who owned the neighbouring house. Later Rex installed a water supply and built a small temporary structure to store feed for the sheep and use as a shelter during the lambing season. Linda once challenged Rex about his use of Dewy Meadow. He told Linda that he was just using the land for the time being. In March 2019 Justin applied successfully for planning permission to build houses on the field. His surveyor, Charlie, has since discovered that a line of bushes separating Dewy Meadow from Linda's garden was planted on part of Dewy Meadow. Charlie explained to Justin that sometime after 2000, David, who owned the house before Linda, had replanted the bushes because Dutch elm disease had destroyed the previous line of trees. Justin wants to start building work on the field and have the bushes between the field and Linda's garden reinstated at the correct position. Rex, however, has refused to leave the field and Linda has insisted that the bushes are to remain where they now stand. Advise Justin. How, if at all, would your advice to Justin differ if Rex had been given a licence to use Dewy Meadow in 1999 and it expired in 2000?