Boundary Agreements : Court of Appeal confirms they are Binding

For over 20 years we've been undertaking Initial Boundary Appraisals, and making recommendations that owners should attempt reaching a Boundary Agreement with their neighbour. Our reports have often formed the basis and support for that agreement.

• Boundary Agreements avoid disputes.

• Boundary Agreements resolve disputes.

And the Court of Appeal confirms that Boundary Agreements are binding on the parties making them, and on the future owners of the properties.

Boundary Agreement Image

It is the Court of Appeal Case of White v Adler [2025] which confirms that Boundary Agreements, even if unregistered and 'informal', can bind both the current, and importantly future owners.

This latest reported case reflected on previous decisions of Neilson v Poole [1969]; Joyce v Rigolli [2004]; Haycocks & Anr v Neville & Anr [2007]; and Gibson v New [2021].

In essence the headlines of this case that we explain below are very useful in giving clarity (which is often enough for clients of a Boundary Surveyor and those parties who might otherwise need to appoint a Chartered Surveyor as an Expert Witness in boundary matters).

If you are from a legal background, or indeed heading down legal avenues, then 'in essence' might not be enough, so it would then be very prudent indeed for you to review the Approved Judgement in full here : https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/392.html.

The background to this case is that the Hobsons and the Joneses owned Willow Cottage and the Old Stores, prior to (respectively) Mr White (who was Appellant) and Professor & Mrs Alder (who were the Respondents). In about October 2005 the Hobsons and Joneses agreed the location of the boundary between them, and also agreed which of them owned the physical boundary feature (orally at first, then in writing with some text and a plan). That became the 'Boundary Agreement'. This Agreement took place just before both of them sold their respective properties to new owners, being Mr White and the Alders, the following month (November 2005).

There were then a number of issues between Mr White and the Alders which the Court's records show happened between 2016 and 2020. These gave rise to legal proceedings, from which the Boundary Agreement of October 2005 came into question, was it binding and more particularly was it binding on Mr White who was not party to the Boundary Agreement, and, it was put, not even aware of that Boundary Agreement.

The questions answered in the Appeal was to the preliminary point of the existence and effect of the Boundary Agreement. Clearly 'existence' of the agreement will be considered on a case-by-case basis... so if it's in writing, signed and with both parties keeping copies safely then one would expect no issues there.

The wider outcome of the case though, and more generally important for us as Boundary Surveyors who assist with parties reaching Boundary Agreements, is the effect of Boundary Agreements and whether they are binding. Now we know that they are.

The important outcome, more generally then, is that the effect of a Boundary Agreement in that they are binding on those that made the agreement and subsequent owners.

The detail of the case is of course still equally important, so something to consider carefully is that the Boundary Agreement must not be conveying (transferring) land from one property to the other. The wording used in the Judgement is "The boundary is presumed always to have been in that location." We will consider in a later post what the situation and advice might need to be if in the Boundary Agreement the parties knowingly try to reallocate land that was clearly part of one property to the other.

The case is refreshingly clear in that it also supports Boundary Agreements, or as it words it a "Boundary Demarcation Agreement".

Lady Justice Asplin concludes (para 60 of the Judgment)..

• It seems to me, therefore, that public policy favours the binding nature of boundary demarcation agreements and that the uncertainties which might arise as to the existence of the agreement are no greater than the uncertainties surrounding the effect of the root conveyance itself. 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.

So our approach to boundaries will continue, such that we'll continue with our initial boundary appraisals, we'll guide clients with our opinions having reviewed the site, looking at its physical features, along with reading the plans and text of the documentation that the parties have.

When it's right to do so, we'll assist the parties with preparing boundary agreements (but it will always be their agreement); we'll continue to support agreements being reached through our Mediation services, and if necessary Expert Witness input. It's great to keep doing what we've developed over the years as trusted and reliable advice and assistance.

It's great to keep doing what we've developed over the years as trusted and reliable advice and assistance.

Conveyance Plans and Boundaries