Court of Appeal Rules on Boundary Demarcation Agreements

The Court of Appeal has clarified the binding nature of boundary demarcation agreements on successors in title, irrespective of their knowledge of such agreements. The case of White v Alder and another [2025] EWCA Civ 392 highlights the proprietary effect of these agreements and their implication for property owners and successors. 

Boundary disputes can escalate, often leading to costly legal battles. These disputes often arise as a result of unclear property boundaries. 

What is a boundary demarcation agreement?

A boundary demarcation agreement is generally a written agreement between property owners which outlines where the physical boundaries of their properties are. They can be useful for property owners to establish clear boundaries and such agreements can be registered with HM Land Registry. 

Brief facts

The dispute in this case arose between Mr White’s property, “Willow Cottage” and the neighbouring adjacent property, known as “The Old Stores” which is owned by Mr and Mrs Alder. Both parties purchased the freehold of their respective properties in November 2005. Prior to their purchase and unbeknown to the Mr White or the Alders, their predecessors had first entered into an oral boundary demarcation agreement agreeing the boundary between the properties. This agreement was later recorded in writing.  In 2016, Mr White (or others on his behalf) demolished part of the boundary wall and began construction of an extension to Willow Cottage. The Alders subsequently alleged that Mr White had trespassed on their land. Proceedings were issued in 2020 for, amongst other things, a declaration as to the position of the boundary. Due to the Court timetable only the preliminary issue as to the existence and effect of the boundary agreement was determined at first instance. The lower Courts found that the boundary agreement bound White and the Alders. 

Mr White appealed to the Court of Appeal after the lower courts ruled that the Boundary Agreement was binding on him, despite his lack of knowledge of the agreement at the time of acquiring the property. 

Judgment 

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasising that a boundary demarcation agreement is binding on successors in title, regardless of their knowledge of the agreement.

The court distinguished between two types of boundary agreements: those that move a boundary to transfer land from one neighbour to another – requiring formalities, and those boundary demarcation agreements that define unclear boundaries, presumed to involve trivial land transfers. The latter type, which was at issue in this case, binds the parties and their successors due to its proprietary effect.

The court noted that none of the relevant authorities required notice or knowledge of the agreement for it to be binding, as it is neither an equitable interest in unregistered conveyancing nor an overriding interest in registered land. Boundary demarcation agreements simply clarify a border or boundary between properties and therefore there is no requirement of prior knowledge. 

Key Takeaways:

1. Proprietary effect – Boundary demarcation agreements have a proprietary effect, binding successors in title regardless of their knowledge of the agreement.
2. Public policy support – The binding nature of these agreements is supported by public policy, ensuring stability and certainty in property boundaries thereby avoiding the risks of litigation. Boundary demarcation agreements also avoid the expense of making a formal application to HM Land Registry for a determination of property boundaries.
3. No requirement for notice – The Court of Appeal clarified that the enforceability of boundary demarcation agreements does not hinge on the successor's notice or knowledge, distinguishing them from equitable or overriding interests.

For further information, please contact Zoe McLean-Wells or Shannon Morrison.