A boundary agreement entered into by an agent of the registered proprietor is binding.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered this issue dismissing an appeal in Bishop v Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC).
The case concerned the determination of the boundary between a strip of land providing access to a development site – the Avenue – belonging to Bishop and the garden of Beacon Cottage, belonging to Jaques. The dispute affected the development potential of the site.
Beacon Cottage and its garden originally formed part of a substantial estate. It was sold off in May 1949 together with a right of way over the Avenue, which adjoined its western side. Contemporaneous documentation showed topographical features running parallel to the Avenue, including a row of pine trees and beyond those, a continuous hedge (“the 1949 hedge”).
Susan Dewar acquired Beacon Cottage in February 1971. A dispute over the extent of the boundary came to light during the conveyancing process and was settled in October 1971 by a memorandum made by Susan’s husband, Stewart Dewar, and Charles Noble, then owner of the Avenue. The memorandum provided that “the strip of land and trees thereon which forms the western boundary of Beacon Cottage is the property of Stewart Dewar”.
Bishop asserted that the correct boundary line was that of the 1949 hedge. The FTT decided the position of the boundary by reference to the 1971 memorandum which accorded with the paper title created in 1949. However, if those findings were wrong the owners of Beacon Cottage had been in adverse possession of the disputed part of the Avenue since at least 1980, acquiring title prior to commencement of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Bishop challenged the memorandum because Stewart Dewar was not the registered proprietor and it failed to meet the formal requirements for the transfer of land. He argued that failure to plead the agency theory raised in the FTT judgment was unfair and amounted to a procedural irregularity which vitiated its decision.
The tribunal was clear that the proceedings had been conducted fairly. It was Jaques’ case that Stewart Dewar had acted on Susan Dewar’s behalf with her authority. Bishop was well aware of the case he had to meet and Susan Dewar had given evidence.
The purpose of the 1971 memorandum was to record an agreement resolving a dispute. The parties expressed themselves to be recording the position as it already was so any question of transfer of land was irrelevant White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
