Neighbouring properties — Boundary dispute — Negotiations between parties’ solicitors — Compromise agreement — Whether agreement invalid in absence of written terms as contract for sale or other disposition of interest in land — Application granted
A dispute arose between the claimants and the defendants as to the true boundary between their adjoining properties. The claimants contended that the boundary line delineated on their transfer plan was incorrect. They therefore sought rectification of the plan and the land register to indicate that the boundary ran along the line of the fence. The defendants took the view that the boundary was as depicted in a plan attached to an earlier transfer of their property.
The parties’ solicitors eventually reached a compromise agreement under which, inter alia, the register was to be amended to show the claimants’ northern boundary as running along the fence-line. The agreement was never implemented and the claimants continued their action because they were not satisfied that the agreement addressed issues regarding their eastern boundary.
The defendants applied to stay the claimants’ action on the ground that the claim had been compromised. They applied, inter alia, for a court order that the agreement between the solicitors had resulted in full and final settlement of the claim regarding the northern boundary. The master held that the parties’ legal representatives had had the authority to agree the compromise, but queried whether the agreement was void, because it had not been in writing as required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The question was referred to the High Court.
Held: The application was granted.
The agreement between the parties regarding the position of the boundary did not relate to a sale or other disposition of an interest in land and it was not, therefore, required to be in writing pursuant to section 2 of the 1989 Act. The agreement reached in correspondence between the solicitors was valid and enforceable.
The Court of Appeal had previously held that section 2 did not apply to an informal agreement between parties that marked out a boundary.
The fact that an agreement formed part of a compromise of court proceedings would not exempt it from the provisions of section 2, but the agreement in this case had effectively resolved the dispute over the location of the northern boundary and did not amount to a disposition: Neilson v Poole (1969) 210 EG 113 and Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79; [2004] PLSCS 35 considered.
The claimants appeared in person; Toby Watkin (instructed by Colemans-ctts Solicitors, of Kingston-upon-Thames) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister