The Court of Appeal's decision in White v Alder reinforced the binding nature of boundary demarcation agreements on successors in title. This ruling highlights the significance of clear boundary agreements and their crucial role in maintaining peace and clarity in property ownership.
Property owners can take several proactive steps to protect themselves from boundary disputes and ensure clarity regarding property boundaries. Here are some key measures:
- Review Property Documents – due diligence is important to identify any potential boundary issues
- Communicate with Neighbours – there is the potential for disputes to arise. Consider whether Alternative Dispute Resolution May be More Cost Effective and less Adversarial
- Seek Legal Advice – always take legal advice and representation, both as to the existing position and to the drafting and negotiation of any boundary agreements
- Document and Register Agreements – as these are binding on successors in title
- Conduct Regular Inspections and use Professional Services to Demarcate Boundaries
The central issue decision in White v Alder was whether a boundary agreement made by the predecessors in title could bind the successors in title, even if they had no knowledge of it.
Background
In October 2005, the predecessors in title of both properties orally agreed on the location of the boundary between Willow Cottage and The Old Stores. This agreement was subsequently recorded in writing through a text and a plan, referred to as the "Boundary Agreement".
In November 2005, the properties were sold to the current owners, the Appellant (owner of Willow Cottage) and the Respondents (owners of The Old Stores).
In 2016, the Appellant demolished part of the boundary wall and began constructing an extension to Willow Cottage. The Respondents alleged that this construction trespassed on their land, forming part of The Old Stores. Consequently, in 2020, the Respondents issued proceedings for damages, interest, and injunctions to prevent further trespassing and to clarify the boundary position.
First instance and appeals
At the first instance, the District Judge made three key findings, that the Boundary Agreement:
- Was reached before the sale of the properties
- Clarified an uncertain boundary and was not a contract to convey land
- Bound the successors in title, i.e., the Appellant and the Respondents
The Appellant appealed this decision, which was dismissed by the Circuit Judge, who upheld that the Boundary Agreement was binding on successors in title.
Second appeal
Permission to appeal was granted at the Court of Appeal, where the court found on behalf of the Respondents that boundary agreements do bind successors in title. In finding on behalf of the Respondents, the Court of Appeal underscores the importance of boundary agreements and their potential to bind successors in title, even in the absence of their knowledge. This decision serves as a reminder for property owners to be aware of any existing boundary agreements when acquiring new properties.
By taking the proactive steps we have set out above, property owners can protect themselves from boundary disputes and ensure that their property boundaries are clearly defined and respected.
