Court of Appeal finds boundary agreement binds successors
Judges at the High Court in London have ruled that a boundary agreement binds future owners of the properties, even if they have no knowledge of the agreement.
The case centres on a neighbour dispute in Fairstead, Chelmsford, between the Alders, who own a property called “The Old Stores” and Darren White, the owner of Willow Cottage.
The all bought their properties in November 2005. The month before, the previous owners made an oral agreement about the boundary between their properties. They agreed The Old Stores owner owns the physical boundary features. That oral agreement was later set down in writing.
Judges at the High Court in London have ruled that a boundary agreement binds future owners of the properties, even if they have no knowledge of the agreement.
The case centres on a neighbour dispute in Fairstead, Chelmsford, between the Alders, who own a property called “The Old Stores” and Darren White, the owner of Willow Cottage.
The all bought their properties in November 2005. The month before, the previous owners made an oral agreement about the boundary between their properties. They agreed The Old Stores owner owns the physical boundary features. That oral agreement was later set down in writing.
In 2016, White demolished part of the boundary wall to build an extension. The Alders sued White in the County Court, alleging trespass on their property and seeking damages.
The case ended up in the Court of Appeal last month, where lawyers for White argued the previous neighbour’s agreement should’t bind the future owners, and it also shouldn’t bind White as he had been unaware of the boundary agreement.
In a ruling handed down yesterday, a three-judge panel disagreed.
“It seems to me… that public policy favours the binding nature of boundary demarcation agreements and the uncertainties which might arise as to the existence of the agreements are no greater than the uncertainties surrounding the effects of the root conveyance itself,” Court of Appeal judge Lady Justice Asplin wrote in the ruling.
“The difficulties in proving a boundary demarcation agreement, even if it is implied rather than express, are likely to be fewer than those encountered in delving back to the original conveyance,” she said.
“It follows that in my judgment… a successor in title is bound by it even if they had no knowledge of it.
“I would dismiss the appeal.”
Darren White v Michael and Sheila Alder
Court of Appeal (Asplin LJ, Zacaroli LJ, Henderson LJ) 7 April 2025
