Land Registry plans record the general position of property boundaries. This means that lines drawn on title plans are not definitive. It is possible to apply to have a boundary shown on the register as a “determined boundary”, but the plans provided with such applications must be highly accurate. For example, measurements shown on plans submitted with such applications must be accurate to within +/-10mm: see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/boundary-agreements-and-determined-boundaries/practice-guide-40-land-registry-plans-supplement-4-boundary-agreements-and-determined-boundaries
The procedure is governed by rules 118 and 119 of the Land Registration Rules 2003. They require the registrar to be satisfied that he can identify all the owners of the land on the other side of the boundary. Then, if he is satisfied that the plan, or plan and verbal description, supplied identifies the exact line of the boundary and that there is an arguable case that the exact line of the boundary is situated in that position, the registrar must give the owners of the land adjoining the boundary notice of the application.
If no one objects, the registrar can complete the application. If there is an objection, the registrar must refer the dispute to the Property Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal. However, the rules do not make any provision for adjoining landowners to lodge rival plans or for the Tribunal to ascertain that the boundary lies in an alternative position. What then is the tribunal’s role in such circumstances?
In Murdoch v Amesbury [2016] UKUT 3 (TCC); [2016] PLSCS 14, the applicant’s plan was deficient because the measurements provided were not within the required tolerance. Consequently, the application was dismissed – but not before the judge in the First Tier Tribunal had purported to ascertain the position of the legal boundary between the properties.
Judge Dight ruled that the judge had been wrong to do so. He noted that the deputy adjudicator had considered that the jurisdiction was much wider in Matson v Maynard (REF2004/579) [17 August 2006], but disagreed. The issue that was referred to the First Tier Tribunal was whether the requirements had been fulfilled. It had had the jurisdiction to direct the Land Registry to give effect to the application, or to cancel it, but did not have the power do anything else. It had not been entitled to determine the underlying boundary dispute between the parties because the relevant statutory provisions and related rules do not give the tribunal express or inherent jurisdiction to do so.
So it seems that, in the event of an argument about the position of a boundary line, the parties should issue proceedings in the court system, unless they are able to reach an agreement through mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. Either party can then make a determined boundary application based on the parties’ agreement or the findings of the court.
The judge acknowledged that some might consider his decision to be “unduly restrictive”. However, it supports the Land Registry’s own stance following the introduction of the determined boundary procedure and confirms that an application to have a boundary shown on the register as having been determined is not a solution for a boundary dispute.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
