In a “neighbours at war” dispute, the Court of Appeal decided that a boundary agreement was binding on the owners even though it had been put in place before both had purchased their neighbouring homes. Neither party had knowledge of its existence until a dispute over an extension arose over the boundary location.
Facts
In White v Alder, the parties owned adjoining residential properties in Chelmsford, Essex known as Willow Cottage and the Old Stores. In October 2005, the predecessors in title to both homes orally agreed that the boundary features on the line of the actual boundary, belonged to the Old Stores. The agreement was subsequently written into an informal agreement.
A matter of days apart from each other in November 2005, White purchased Willow Cottage and the Alders purchased the Old Stores. In 2016, White demolished part of the boundary wall and built an extension to Willow Cottage, without knowledge of a boundary agreement which confirmed the boundary features belonged to the Old Stores.
The Alders issued trespass proceedings stating that the wall of the extension, its foundations and the scaffolding used in construction, trespassed across the boundary. Mr White’s extension apparently trespassed just an inch or so into the Alders’ land.
The County Court held that the boundary agreement was binding on White and the Alders.
Appeal
Mr White subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. White argued that the boundary agreement did not bind successors in title to the land. In the alternative, if it did bind successors in title, then it should only do so if they had actual knowledge of the agreement.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision by confirming that the boundary demarcation agreement was binding on both parties and White had trespassed onto the Alders’ land. The court relied on a previous decision in Neilson v Poole which identified two types of boundary agreement:-
- Firstly, a boundary agreement which moves the properties’ boundaries and transfers legal title to parts of land from one neighbour to another. The formalities for a conveyance of land must be met in such an agreement as it transfers legal interests in land.
- Secondly, a boundary “demarcation” agreement which gives clarity when the boundary is unclear. Such an agreement decides where the location of the boundary is always presumed to have been, as conveyed by the root conveyance. Small areas of land may be exchanged, but no formalities are required for a binding agreement.
This case dealt with the second type of boundary demarcation agreement which was a “a delineation of the property transferred or conveyed and is so for all purposes”. It was binding on White and the Alders as successors in title to the land, irrespective of knowledge of the agreement.
As a legal agreement that established the physical extent of the parties’ legal interests, the determined boundary is presumed always to have been in that location. There was, therefore, no requirement for prior knowledge of the boundary agreement.
Conclusion
This case reinforces the need to raise careful enquiries when purchasing land. Parties are advised to ask if any boundary demarcation agreements are in place, particularly if there is doubt over the boundary, as this specific query does not fall within the standard residential or commercial enquiries.
However following White v Alder, it may be that the seller is unable to disclose when it has no knowledge of a prior boundary agreement which comes to light later on, and yet is still binding on the parties.
