If there is insufficient evidence to determine an exact boundary line under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 then the application must be refused.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has allowed an appeal from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal determining a boundary line in Farrow v Boag [2023] UKUT 167 (LC); [2023] PLSCS 134.
The case concerned the determination of the boundary between two properties: a house and gardens in St Austin’s Grove, Sheringham, Norfolk, belonging to Boag, and a development site to the west belonging to Farrow.
St Austin’s Grove runs east from Curtis Lane. The land of both parties was originally in common ownership. The disputed boundary was created by an indenture of July 1913. It ran north, terminating at a passageway running east from Curtis Lane. The plan to the indenture was not to scale and showed the plot as having straight boundaries on all sides with each boundary perpendicular to the others. The southern boundary of 5 Curtis Lane – the distance from Curtis Lane to the boundary in dispute – was marked as “about 127 inches”.
Farrow’s land was originally part of 5 Curtis Lane and was conveyed in June 1921. The plan to that conveyance was a scale plan, on which the distance from Curtis Lane to the boundary in dispute was marked as “132 inches or thereabouts”.
The FTT determined the boundary line based on the 1913 indenture, concluding that the application plan submitted by Boag showed the exact line of the boundary. Farrow appealed, arguing that it was not possible to tell where the boundary created in 1913 ran on the basis of the information now available.
The UT agreed. There was no extrinsic evidence with any real probative value. The 1913 indenture did not define the boundaries of the land precisely and the plan was not to scale so the measurements could not be relied upon. While the dimensions of the land were recorded, there was no reference point from which those relatively precise measurements must be taken. The judge had believed the point of the southernmost end of the boundary line marked on Boag’s surveyor’s plan was agreed. It was not and there was no evidence from the surveyor as to why it had been plotted where it had.
There was insufficient evidence from which the FTT could find the exact location of the disputed boundary and the application should have been refused. The boundary would need to remain a general boundary for the time being at least.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
