Where there is no conveyance to consider, the identification of a boundary created over a century ago by reference to a row of trees is not an exact science, but must be established through such evidence as exists of topographical features which existed at the time of the conveyance.
The High Court has considered this issue, rejecting a claim for trespass in Charlton and another v Forrest and others [2024] EWHC 1014 (Ch).
The case concerned the boundary between the claimants’ freehold property at Ty Chwarel, St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan, and adjacent freehold land and buildings owned by the defendants, trading as the Castleton Residential Park.
The claimants alleged that the defendants’ removal of a substantial number of trees, shrubs and other growth in 2021 constituted a trespass because the trees formed part of the boundary and were jointly owned by the parties.
Such removal had created gaps in the screen of foliage between the two parcels of land so that the claimants could see the caravans on the defendants’ land and their house could be seen from the defendants’ land.
The defendants contended that the trees removed were wholly on their land and that the trees that remained constituted the boundary.
Ordinarily the starting point for determining the boundary is the conveyance by which the separate parcels were created. However, the conveyance dividing the properties was lost.
The parties agreed that the land registry title plans and Ordnance Survey not maps only identified the general location of boundaries and historic plans on sales of Ty Chwarel were too indistinct to assist.
Consequently, the court had to have regard to such evidence as existed of any topographical features marking the boundary, which was inferred existed at the time the land was divided.
The starting point was an aerial photograph of September 1945 from which the court inferred that the boundary was a row of trees.
From aerial and Google Earth photographs between 1956 and 2018 the court concluded that the best approximation of where the boundary lay was the line contended for by the defendants.
In all photographs, the western side of the tree line had remained constant and formed a relatively straight line; for most of the boundary up to 1991 it consisted of a single line of trees and over the years additional trees and vegetation had grown up on the eastern side of the boundary, on the defendants’ land, particularly in the disputed section.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
