A Stream-Lined Boundary Dispute

In this case, the Court of Appeal addressed the "general boundaries rule" in boundary disputes, and adverse possession of unregistered land.

 

Background to the Case

The Appellants and the Respondent lived in adjoining properties in Leicestershire. Inbetween their properties ran a stream, and a fence.

In 2020, the Respondent Ms Narga, bought the property known as Brook Barn, situated to the north of the stream. Ms Narga had reviewed the title plans for Brook Barn and argued that they clearly showed the boundary of the property extending beyond the fence at the northern bank of the stream, across the stream and covering a strip of land on the south bank of the stream.

Ms Narga demanded a licence fee from the Appellants for using the disputed land and began clearing the land either side of the stream. In 2020, the Appellants obtained an interim injunction to stop Ms Narga from clearing the land, and a four-year legal battle ensued which went from Leicestershire County Court to the Court of Appeal.

 

The County Court decision

The case first came before Hedley J sitting in the County Court in Leicester. The judge made three key findings:

• the conveyance Ms Narga relied upon did not accurately depict the boundary to Brook Barn, which in his view only extended to the southern edge of the stream and did not include the southern strip;
• the Appellants had acquired title from the southern bank of the stream up to the fence on the northern bank by adverse possession;
• however, the Court held that the first registration of Brook Barn and the subsequent registered dispositions resulted in Ms Narga taking Brook Barn free of any interest that the Appellants had over the disputed land.

 

The High Court decision

On the Appellants first appeal to the High Court, the judge dismissed the appeal and agreed with the County Court's analysis that the impact of the registration and subsequent sale of Brook Barn meant that Ms Narga took free of the Appellants' interest in the disputed land. The Appellants then appealed to the Court of Appeal.  

 

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, held that this case was not about the effect of registration on possessory rights but was instead predominantly a boundary dispute to which the "general boundaries rule" applied.

Upon the first registration of Brook Barn in 2003 the extent of the registered title was shown by the relevant title plan. However, the Court of Appeal stressed that the title plan boundary was of limited relevance to determining where the precise boundary actually lay. And while the title plan for Ms Narga's property showed the boundary following the southern bank of the stream, the precise boundary needed to be determined by looking at the pre-registration deeds and the de facto position on the ground. 

Newey LJ remarked:

"it would make no sense for a title plan which avowedly portrays only a general boundary to be deemed to determine the precise extent to which the land claimed by adverse possession is included in the title."

Nugee LJ also confirmed that:

"The purpose of a filed plan is to identify the property concerned, namely Brook Barn, not to identify where its boundaries are. The whole point of the general boundaries rule, formerly found in rule 278 of the 1925 Rules and now found in s. 60 LRA 2002, is that the filed plan does not determine the exact line of the boundary."

Accordingly, as the Appellants could demonstrate that they had obtained title to the disputed land through adverse possession before the first registration of Brook Barn, the later delineation of the boundary on the title plan did not override that. Instead, the precise title boundary was to be determined by looking at the position on the ground at the point of first registration.

 

Summary

This case affirmed the wide scope of the "general boundaries rule" and the dangers of putting undue reliance in title plans as opposed to looking at the position on the ground. It also highlights that adverse possession still plays an important role in boundary disputes prior to first registration of the land.  

A key point to take away from this case is the need to ensure, when acquiring property, that you undertake an inspection of the boundary to look underneath the title so that any discrepancies can be addressed with the seller and (if necessary) relevant neighbouring owners, prior to the sale. This may just save you a 4-year legal battle and GBP100,000s in legal fees.