Fairacre Investments Ltd v Earlrose Golf & Leisure Ltd and another

Trespass claim — Boundary agreements — Whether agreements made by person with authority to do so — Whether intended to determine legal boundary — Claim allowed The claimant owned an area of derelict land, previously used for tipping activities, adjoining a waste-recycling depot owned and operated by the defendants. It brought a claim against the defendants for trespass, alleging that they had encroached upon its land over several years by creating mounds of earth, parking vehicles and plant and storing materials there. In their defence, the defendants relied upon oral agreements as to the boundary, said to have been concluded between the parties’ predecessors in title, and made, as to the claimant’s predecessor, by a site manager on its behalf. They argued that the agreements gave rise to a proprietary estoppel, binding the claimant as an overriding interest within the meaning of section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. Held: The claim was allowed. On the evidence, the site manager’s authority had not extended to making boundary agreements with neighbouring landowners without reference to, and the approval of, the then beneficial owner of the claimant’s land. In the absence of such authority, the alleged agreements could not have been binding. A defence based upon proprietary estoppel or constructive trust could not succeed because no relevant assurances had been made by, or on behalf of, the owner, nor had there been any relevant common understanding between the parties. Any agreements relied upon by the defendants had been of an informal nature, relating to the areas in which business operations were to be carried out. Alexander Hill-Smith (instructed by Read & Co, of Twickenham) appeared for the claimant; Emily Windsor (instructed by Courts & Co) appeared for the defendants. Sally Dobson, barrister