Boundary Disputes

Case Name, Reference and Bailii Link

Summary

Ian Quayle discusses another boundary case that came before the Central London County Court which highlights the dangers of incorrect boundary identification, and the high risks associated with litigation concerning litigating boundary disputes. 

When acting in a residential or commercial property transaction involving the division of an existing plot, be careful to ensure the boundary is adequately described and that any plans used are accurate. 

Facts

The case concerned a boundary dispute arising from a subdivision of a parcel of land in two by a conveyance in 2018.  

Unfortunately, the boundary was not accurately described, the plans lacked precision, and, to compound the problem, there were no pre-existing physical features by which it could be identified. 

In addition, the boundary had not been pegged out resulting in the problem before the court namely how to ascertain the precise location of the boundary. 

The claimant, the owner of the hotel, claimed trespass contending that the defendant had erected a wooden hoarding alongside the access road to the hotel and driving metal stakes into the ground rupturing the hotel’s gas supply on two occasions. 

The defendant claimed the acts complained of did not constitute trespass as they took place on land which the defendant owned. 

The proceedings were defended and counterclaim made claiming part of the hotel’s access road and adjoining landscaping had been built on the defendant’s land. 

First Instance

At trial, the claimant and defendant relied on evidence from both boundary and valuation surveyors and the evidence put before the court varied considerably, albeit both sides placed some reliance upon the boundary skirting the ‘root protection area’ of a large oak tree, the radius of which was disputed. The defendant’s expert also relied upon scaling from a drainage plan including in the originating conveyance, which included GPS-referenced gridlines and so which enabled, the defendant claimed, the boundary to be positioned with absolute accuracy.  

The trial judge rejected the claimant’s case finding that the position of the boundary was precisely as the defendant had contended it to be all along.  

The judge also rejected the claimant’s argument that the defendant had acquiesced in the position of the boundary whilst the access road was being laid down, finding that in the context of a brownfield site being redeveloped, there was nothing at the relevant time which would have put the defendant on notice that its land was being built on. 

The judge was rather scathing of the claimant finding its conduct deplorable (both pre-action and during the course of the proceedings) holding the claimant to have engaged in “sharp practice,” justifying the grant of mandatory injunctive relief against it. 

The trespassing part of the access road and adjacent landscaping were therefore ordered to be removed within three months and that the defendant should be awarded on an indemnity basis.  

Comments

This unreported case highlights several important points.  

Clarity is required for boundary identification when land is being sub-divided. 

Boundaries should be described accurately in words with reference ideally to permanent physical features or by measures taken from permanent fixed points.