The Court of Appeal case, White v Alder & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 392, dealt with the question: “Can a boundary agreement bind successors in title, and if so, must the parties have knowledge of it?”.
What is a boundary agreement?
Boundary agreements are formal, written agreements made between property owners to precisely define the physical boundary between properties, particularly when the exact legal boundary is unclear or disputed.
Background
In this case, White and Alder (together, the “Parties”) are neighbours, and both bought their properties in Chelmsford just days apart in November 2005. The month before, White and Alder’s predecessors in title (the “Predecessors”) entered into an oral boundary agreement (recorded in writing via text and with a plan), agreeing the location of the boundary between the properties (the “Agreement”).
In 2016, White demolished part of the boundary wall and constructed an extension. Alder considered the wall, foundations and temporary scaffolding to constitute a trespass on his land. White claimed he had no knowledge of the Agreement.
Case History
In 2020, Alder issued a claim against White for payment of damages and interest along with an injunction requiring White to remove the trespass and declarations as to the position of the boundary between the properties.
The County Court Judge made three findings about the Agreement: (i) it was reached before the sale of the properties, (ii) it clarified an uncertain boundary and did not contract to convey land, (iii) it bound the Parties as successors in title.
White appealed the County Court judgment, but the Circuit Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court decision. The Court of Appeal Judge subsequently granted permission for White to bring an appeal on the basis there was a realistic prospect of establishing that the Circuit Judge was wrong to find the Agreement binding on the Parties (as successors in title), regardless of whether Alder had any knowledge of it.
The Parties’ Positions
During White’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, White argued that the Agreement did not bind successors in title, or, if it did, then it should only do so if the successor had knowledge, and/or notice, of the Agreement.
Alder argued that boundary agreements have proprietary effect and bind successors in title, relying on the case of Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909 in which two types of boundary agreement were identified:
- Agreements to move the boundary and transfer land from one to other. In such cases, the formalities of registration must be complied with.
- Agreements to define a previously unclear or uncertain boundary, even if they include the conscious or unconscious transfer of a trivial amount of land.
The Court of Appeal Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that boundary agreements define the boundaries of the legal estates. They bind successors in title, regardless of knowledge, as they establish the true extent of the property acquired. It is not necessary for parties to act upon them before they become binding, e.g. building a wall or erecting a fence. The Court considered this to be consistent with public policy favouring certainty and avoiding litigation. Without this approach, it could be said that such agreements should be avoided due to the potential litigious nature.
This ruling highlights the significance of clear boundary agreements and their critical role in maintaining amicable neighbourly relationships. It also serves a reminder for property owners to be aware of any existing boundary agreements when acquiring new properties.
To read the full judgment, click the link below.
Darren White v Michael Alder & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives
Contact details
eleanor.tordoff@tyrlaw.co.uk +44 (0)7908 190 547 +44 (0) 113 322 8240
