The Upper Tribunal decision in Bishop v Jaques 2025 offers important guidance on boundary disputes and the legal requirements of a binding boundary demarcation agreement. The case highlights how informal arrangements between neighbours can bind their successors in title and reaffirms the ruling in White v Alder, a case discussed in our June top tip.
Background
The dispute was between two parties: Mr Bishop, who owned a strip of land known as 'The Avenue' and Mrs Jaques, who owned Beacon Cottage. The Avenue provided access to another piece of land owned by Mr Bishop earmarked for development. However, the viability of this land becoming a development site rested on whether The Avenue was wide enough to accommodate machinery and other access requirements.
Mr Bishop submitted an application to determine the boundary and argued the boundary lay into Beacon Cottages' garden. Opposingly, Mrs Jaques argued the boundary lay at the end of the garden.
First hearing
The case was heard in the First-tier Tribunal who dismissed Mr Bishop's application to determine the boundary and made 3 key findings:
- The boundary had already been determined in an agreement reached in 1971 between the husband of the then owner of Beacon Cottage, Mrs Dewar, and the then owner of The Avenue, Mr Noble, noted in the form of a memorandum. Although the agreement related to resolving a dispute over the ownership of a strip of trees, it was decided that this also inadvertently defined the boundary. The memorandum noted that the 'the strip of land and the trees.. which forms the western boundary of Beacon Cottage is the property of the said Stewart Grant Dewar' and therefore, the boundary was set at the end of Beacon Cottages' garden.
- Mr Bishop produced a historic title plan relating to the original conveyance of Beacon Cottage in 1949. The original conveyance documentation was lost, and the plan had various ambiguous markings. The tribunal ruled that the agreement reached in 1971 took precedence over the title plan.
- In any event, the owners of Beacon Cottage had been in adverse possession of the disputed proportion of The Avenue since at least 1980.
Appeal
On appeal, the Upper Tribunal unhelp the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and confirmed that the memorandum signed in 1971 was a valid boundary demarcation agreement and established the boundary.
Key takeaways
Boundary demarcation agreements:
- Do not require the formalities of a deed under section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925
- Bind successors in title
- Override ambiguous title plans
