Boundary disputes between neighbours often arise because the physical features on the ground, such as fences, hedges, or walls do not always match the legal boundary shown on the title documentation.
The recent appeal dismissal in Todd v Marsh clarified that, in absence of an enforceable boundary agreement, the boundary line shown on the registered title plan, when considered in conjunction with historic conveyances and title documentation, takes precedence over physical features on the ground.
In the first instance, the Court was asked to determine the legal boundary between neighbouring properties located in East Sussex. The claimants argued that a fence marked the boundary of their land, whereas the defendants contended that the legal boundary should be determined by reference to the title documents.
Do Physical Boundary Features Take Precedence Over the Paper Title Boundary?
A common misconception is that a physical boundary feature automatically marks the legal boundary between two properties. In Todd v Marsh, the claimants argued that the fence represented the true boundary because it had existed on the land when they purchased it. The claimants also relied on representations given in an email exchange between the previous owners in which the parties referred to “your side” and “our side” when discussing maintenance of the fence.
The Court did not accept this argument. Instead, it emphasised that the starting point in any boundary dispute is the relevant conveyances, transfers, and historic title documentation. Where those documents clearly establish the intended boundary, physical features on the ground will not normally override them.
The dispute in Todd v Marsh reached the High Court on appeal, where the earlier decision that the legal boundary followed the historic conveyances and title documentation rather than the fence was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Importance of Documenting Boundary Agreements
One of the most important lessons from Todd v Marsh is the value of properly documenting any agreement concerning a boundary.
Individuals may believe that a verbal discussion or email exchange will be sufficient to resolve boundary issues permanently. However, difficulties may arise years later when properties are sold and new owners become involved. It’s at this stage, potentially when the original parties have long moved on, that disagreements about what was actually agreed arise.
The dispute in Todd v Marsh demonstrates these risks. Although the claimants relied on communications with the previous owner, the Court was not persuaded that those communications established a binding agreement capable of overriding the historic title documentation.
Please note, however, that HM Land Registry advise that the title plan for a property is not definitive in terms of the location of boundaries, and is indicative only. It is therefore important that all title documentation available should be carefully considered in the absence of a formal boundary agreement, and reliance should not be placed solely upon the title plan.
If you require advice about your property please get in touch with our Property Litigation team.