A direct-to-consumer genetic testing company has been fined £2.31 million by the Information...
A landowner’s appeal to overturn a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision on a boundary dispute has been dismissed by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), reinforcing the legal weight of informal historic agreements in boundary determination cases.
Background: Dispute Over Property Boundary and Access Strip
The case involved a dispute between neighbouring landowners over the precise boundary between a narrow access strip and a residential garden. The appellant had previously owned a large estate and, after selling the main house, retained a field earmarked for residential development, along with a strip of land providing access to it.
The disagreement centred on whether the eastern boundary of the access strip lay just west of a former row of pine trees, or further to the east. The position of this boundary was crucial, as it affected whether the strip was wide enough to support future development.
Key Legal Issue: The 1971 Boundary Agreement
Central to the case was a 1971 agreement made between the then-owners of the properties, which confirmed that the land on which the pine trees stood belonged to the neighbouring property. Although the document was not signed by the registered owner herself, it was signed by her husband.
The First-tier Tribunal concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable—not as a transfer of land, but as a clear declaration of the existing boundary. The Tribunal was satisfied that the husband had authority to act on behalf of the registered owner and that the document accurately reflected a long-held understanding between the parties.
Additional Findings Supporting Dismissal
The FTT also found that:
A 1949 conveyance appeared to place the pine trees within the neighbour’s land, supporting the claimed boundary line.
The neighbour and their predecessors had been in adverse possession of the disputed land since at least 1980, which would independently establish title under adverse possession law.
Upper Tribunal Decision: No Error of Law
On appeal, the landowner argued that the FTT had erred in law by relying on an agreement lacking formal legal requirements and signed only by the spouse of the registered proprietor.
However, the Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s findings, concluding that:
The 1971 agreement was not a land transfer, but a record of the boundary.
There was sufficient evidence of the husband’s authority to act.
The agreement was binding as a boundary confirmation, not subject to the formalities required for land transfers.
Because the primary reasoning was upheld, the Upper Tribunal did not need to rule on the alternative grounds regarding adverse possession or the 1949 conveyance.
Legal Insight: Importance of Historic Agreements in Property Boundary Disputes
This judgment underscores the importance of historic boundary agreements in UK property and land law, particularly in residential boundary disputes. Even where such agreements lack formal conveyancing signatures, they may still be upheld if they reflect a long-established understanding and are supported by surrounding evidence.
Solicitors advising clients on land ownership disputes, property boundaries, or adverse possession claims should be mindful of the evidential weight given to historic informal agreements in tribunal proceedings.
Commentary:
This case illustrates the significance of historical agreements in boundary disputes, even where such agreements may not adhere strictly to formal conveyancing requirements. Tribunals will look to the intention behind such documents and longstanding factual arrangements to determine boundary positions.