Boundary disputes between neighbours are emotionally stressful and expensive. They are best avoided by reaching agreement, if at all possible. But what happens if a previous owner agreed a boundary and a future owner is unaware of that agreement?
In White v Adler and another [2025], the Court of Appeal considered whether such an agreement binds successors in title, and whether it matters if the successor had no knowledge of the agreement.
Mr White, the appellant, had bought ''Willow Cottage'' after an oral boundary agreement (later recorded in writing) had been made between the previous owners of Willow Cottage and the neighbouring property called ''The Old Stores'', which was owned by the Adlers. When Mr White carried out works that allegedly trespassed onto the Adlers' property (as established by the boundary agreement), the Adlers issued court proceedings. The Adlers initially succeeded in their claim which led to Mr White appealing to the Court of Appeal (COA).
Mr White argued that he could not be bound by the prior agreement, especially since he had no knowledge of it when he purchased his property. He relied heavily on the prior High Court case of Gibson v New [2021], where it was suggested that boundary arguments might not bind successors in title. However, the COA rejected this submission and held that the comments in that case had not been relevant to the decision, which had involved the original parties to a boundary agreement. Accordingly, these comments were not binding as they were not part of the necessary reasoning behind the decision in the case. Additionally there has not been proper consideration of earlier, binding authorities in this instance.
The COA dismissed Mr White's appeal, deciding that boundary demarcation agreements are binding on successors in title without any requirement for knowledge or notice. The COA reaffirmed the long-standing principle set out in Neilson v Poole [1969], that a boundary agreement that merely demarcates rather than transfers land, amounts to a valid and binding clarification of ownership boundaries. Importantly, such an agreement is not a transfer of land requiring formalities under the Land Charges Act 1925 (registration) or later the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (formalities for terms to be in writing, etc).
Key points from the judgement include:
- Boundary demarcation agreements which merely clarify uncertain boundaries are not a sale or transfer of land and thus do not trigger formal requirements for writing or registration;
- Such agreements have proprietary effect: they define the extent of land conveyed by the "root conveyance" and are presumed to have established the ''true and ancient limits'' of ownership;
- There is no requirement for a successor to have knowledge or notice of the boundary agreement for it to bind them; and
- Public policy supports upholding such agreements to promote certainty and avoid future disputes.
The Court's decision in White v Adler reaffirms the principle that a boundary agreement that does no more than seek to clarify uncertain boundaries bind successors in title, regardless of whether that successor knew about it when purchasing their property, providing certainty to property owners and promoting finality in boundary disputes.
