Boundary Demarcation Agreements: Binding on Successors in Title: Understanding the Court of Appeal’s Decision in White v Alder

In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has ruled that boundary demarcation agreements are binding on successors in title, regardless of their knowledge of such agreements. This ruling has significant implications for property owners.

Case Background

The case of White v Alder involved two neighbouring properties. In 2005, the predecessors in title of both properties orally agreed on the location of the legal boundary and documented this agreement informally with some text and a plan. Fast forward to 2016, White demolished a boundary wall to build an extension, leading to a dispute with the Alders, who claimed that the new wall and its foundations trespassed across the agreed boundary line.

Key Legal Question

The central question before the Court of Appeal was whether a boundary agreement reached by predecessors in title was binding on their successors, even if the agreement was not recorded at the Land Registry and the successors had no knowledge of it. White, the new owner, was unaware of the boundary agreement until after purchasing the property.

Court of Appeal’s Ruling

The Court of Appeal concluded that a boundary demarcation agreement is inherently a delineation of property previously transferred or conveyed and is binding on successors in title. This means that such agreements establish the physical extent of the respective legal estates created by past conveyances or transfers, and the boundary is presumed to have always been in that location.

Types of Boundary Agreements

Boundary agreements can be categorised into two types:

Transferring Agreements: These involve a conscious transfer or exchange of land between adjoining owners and must comply with legal formalities, including section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Demarcation Agreements: These agreements set out the exact line of an unclear boundary and are not subject to the same formalities as transferring agreements.

Policy Reasons and Legal Precedents

The Court of Appeal supported its decision by referencing previous case law, including Neilson v Poole (1969), where it was established that boundary agreements are acts of peace that quiet strife and avert litigation. The court also noted that such agreements are presumed to be demarcation agreements, intended to identify the boundary rather than convey land.

Practical Implications

The ruling emphasises the importance of boundary demarcation agreements in establishing clear property boundaries and reducing disputes. It also highlights the need for property buyers to inquire about existing boundary agreements, even though current CPSE enquiries may not directly address them.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in White v Alder reinforces the binding nature of boundary demarcation agreements on successors in title. This ruling highlights the significance of clear boundary agreements and their crucial role in maintaining peace and clarity in property ownership.