Property boundaries can give rise to some tricky disputes, from a neighbour replacing their boundary fence and shifting the boundary line slightly to a tree situated on the boundary line and causing inconvenience or damage to one side or the other. The last thing any of us wants is to be in dispute with a neighbour, someone we might see on a daily basis, a stressful situation that you cannot escape even in your own home. These disputes can escalate quickly as a result of the emotions involved and tend to be long winded and costly to resolve.
A dispute often arises simply due to a lack of understanding. Most people assume that the Title Plan for their property, the document held at Land Registry depicting the boundaries of a property by a red line, is definitive, this is usually not the case. Section 60 (1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 sets out the current position regarding what is known as the ‘general boundaries rule’. This rules means that, unless boundaries have been defined, Land Registry Title Plans are indicative only. They are not an exact measurement or plan.
So, while the Title Plan or historic deeds are a good starting point, they do not establish a legal boundary for a property.
There are a number of ways to try and resolve a boundary dispute. One of the simplest ways is perhaps to try and reach an agreement between the parties. A boundary agreement can be made verbally, or perhaps preferably in the circumstances written into a formal document. While this may seem like a sensible, swift and cost effective way of resolving an issue, it does leave the matter open to further dispute. One instance where a boundary agreement may be disputed is when one of the properties subject to the agreement is sold. The new owner may feel that, as they were not a party to the agreement it should not bind them or that it became invalid when the property was sold.
Cases such as Neilson v Poole (1969) and Yeates & Anor v Line & Anor [2012] dealt with oral agreements. Neilson v Poole is considered to be the leading case on this point and confirmed that boundary agreements could either involve an exchange of land or identify the boundary of a property. The judgment in Neilson v Poole found that, unless there was evidence to the contrary, if parties agree a boundary, then it will be deemed to be an agreement to the location of a boundary rather than a conveyance of land. The more recent case of Yeates & Anor v Line & Anor confirmed the position with Mr Kevin Prosser QC stating in his judgment that
” I conclude that the compromise agreement is not an agreement “for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the [Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989], so that despite being oral it is a valid contract”.
On 7th April 2025 HHJ Duddridge gave his judgment in the appeal in the case of White v Alder & Anor. The appeal dealt with the question of whether or not a boundary agreement is binding on successors in title and, if so, whether that is contingent on the successor’s knowledge of the agreement.
The 2025 appeal case has reconfirmed the position set out in Neilson v Poole. Specifically, the judgment confirmed that boundary agreements can bind successors in title and that knowledge of the agreement by a successor in title is not necessary to ensure that the agreement can be enforced.
Check out Boundary Trees | Tree Law – Legal tree expert to see what work we do in relation to boundaries and trees on boundaries.
