The Court of Appeal determined that a boundary demarcation agreement between previous property owners binds successors in title regardless of their knowledge of the agreement, reinforcing that such agreements define the extent of the land transferred.

Background

The dispute concerned neighbouring properties in Essex, where predecessors in title had orally agreed to the location of the boundary and ownership of physical boundary features. This agreement was later recorded in writing. When Mr White began construction work allegedly encroaching on the Alders’ land, litigation ensued. The preliminary issue was whether the boundary agreement bound successors in title without their knowledge.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, confirming that boundary demarcation agreements bind successors in title regardless of knowledge. Lady Justice Asplin distinguished between two boundary agreements: those transferring land (requiring formalities) and those merely demarcating unclear boundaries (not requiring formalities). The Court held that the latter type inherently binds successors as they define what was purchased. Such agreements establish “on the ground the physical extent of the respective legal estates created by the conveyance or transfer” and are presumed to reflect “the true and ancient limits” of the property.

Endnote

This judgment provides critical clarity on the proprietary effect of boundary demarcation agreements. The Court prioritized legal certainty and public policy considerations, noting such agreements are “acts of peace” that avoid litigation and disproportionate expenses associated with formal boundary determinations under the Land Registration Rules 2003.

Read the full decision of the Court of Appeal: White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392