Boundary agreements and determined boundaries (PG40s4)

Registration with general boundaries is sufficient for the majority of titles. However, there are occasions where an owner might require something more precise. There are 2 main ways to achieve this: entering into a boundary agreement or having a determined boundary.

It should be noted that the process of agreeing the boundary line with a neighbour, whether it is for the purpose of entering into a boundary agreement or for the purpose of having a determined boundary, can itself generate forceful differences of opinion, perhaps where none had previously existed. In some circumstances this could lead to a dispute about the boundary.

Two or more sets of owners may come to an agreement about the boundary between their properties. The agreement can deal with the position of the legal boundary, or the maintenance of a boundary feature (such as a hedge), or both. This supplement is concerned only with boundary agreements in so far as they deal with the position of the legal boundary.

For example, neighbours may agree that the legal boundary between their properties is the middle of a hedge (and that each will keep their side of the hedge below a certain height). Or there may be a post and rail fence and a brick wall running close together between 2 properties and the owners agree which of the 2 possible boundary features marks the legal boundary.

It is for legal advisers to advise their clients, in the particular circumstances, as to (i) whether or not a boundary agreement is appropriate for them, (ii) the form the agreement should take and (iii) whether or not to apply to have it recorded in the register. However, you may find the following comments helpful.

There is a rebuttable presumption that a boundary agreement does not involve the transfer of any land, and that the agreed position coincides with the true position of the legal boundary. The presumption will not be rebutted merely because of “circumstances of doubt or uncertainty” as to whether or not the transfer of any land is actually involved. See Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909 at 918 and 919. However, it must be the case that where the agreed position differs from what is shown in a title plan, the agreement can only have identified the current position of the legal boundary if the agreed position is within the scope of the general boundaries rule: see practice guide 77: altering the register by removing land from a title plan.

Where, on the other hand, it is established that there is in fact a transfer of land involved then, subject to the possible requirement to be in writing (see A simple boundary agreement), the boundary agreement gives rise to an obligation on a party to transfer any of their land falling on the other party’s side of the agreed boundary, if called upon to do so: Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909 at 918 and 919.

In circumstances where there is clearly a transfer of land involved, the neighbours may wish instead (or following the boundary agreement) to ‘formally’ transfer or convey the land. Only then, on registration, will the transfer be effective at law – and this is so even if only a small or trivial amount of land is involved. This approach may be most appropriate where there has been a dispute between the neighbours and there is a desire to resolve the matter once and for all. It is almost certainly appropriate, whatever the relationship, where the agreed boundary involves the transfer of a substantial amount of land.

It seems settled that an “agreement to demarcate an unclear boundary is binding on the parties and binds successors”: Haycock v Neville [2007] EWCA Civ 78 at [25] and Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909. In White -v- Alder (2025) EWCA Civ 392, the Court of Appeal found that a boundary agreement which demarcated unclear boundaries bound successors in title even though they had no knowledge of it.

A boundary agreement which does not involve the conscious transfer of land, or in other words does not have a “disposing purpose”, falls outside the scope of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 – which is concerned with “a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land”. As a result, such a boundary agreement does not need to be in writing in order to be enforceable: Haycock v Neville [2007] EWCA Civ 78 at [25]; Yeates v Line [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch) at [29]. This is also the case where only “trivial transfers of land [are] consciously involved” and the de minimis principle applies: Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79 at [32]; [45]; Yeates v Line [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch) at [30]. But it is obviously sensible to put the agreement into writing and for the parties to sign the document. The registrar is unlikely to proceed with an application to alter the register by recording a boundary agreement (see Recording a boundary agreement in the register) unless the applicant produces a copy of a signed agreement.

Where neighbours agree on the position of the legal boundary, there is no particular reason to doubt that this was the position of the legal boundary, and they want to try to stop any going-back on the agreement, particularly when one of the properties is sold, then it might be appropriate to have the agreement put into writing and recorded in the individual registers.

There is no prescribed form for a written boundary agreement, even where the land concerned is registered. The following shows the form that a simple boundary agreement might take where the properties concerned are both registered.

It would be sensible for both parties, and any witnesses, to sign and date the plan attached to the agreement. Generally speaking, the better the quality of the plan – and, in particular, the more precisely it shows the...