Roy Stephen Farrow v Duncan Boag

A boundary may be entered as a determined boundary only where the available evidence establishes its exact line with sufficient precision for recording on the title plan. A tribunal must refuse the application where the originating conveyance and admissible extrinsic evidence leave a material uncertainty about the boundary’s location.

The general rule that a court should decide where a conveyanced boundary lies does not remove the specific evidential requirement for a determination under Land Registration Act 2002. Later physical features and conveyancing material assist only if they have probative value in identifying the parties’ original boundary.

Mr Boag applied under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 to determine the boundary between his registered property and Mr Farrow’s adjoining development land. The First-tier Tribunal directed the Chief Land Registrar to enter the boundary shown on Mr Boag’s survey plan.

Mr Farrow appealed. The central issue was whether the 1913 conveyance, together with the available evidence, established the line on that plan with the precision required for a determined boundary.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal erred in determining the boundary because the evidence did not establish the exact line shown on the application plan.

2. Under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and rule 118 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, a determined boundary requires both a plan identifying the exact line claimed and evidence establishing that exact line. The required evidence must permit identification with the precision needed to prepare and record the plan. If it does not, the boundary must remain a general boundary.

3. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to treat construction of the 1913 Indenture as the principal issue. Extrinsic evidence, including later conduct and physical features, was relevant only if it had probative value concerning the boundary fixed in 1913. The later conveyances and the concrete wall did not meet that standard.

4. The Indenture plan was diagrammatic and not to scale. Its only reference point described the southern end of the disputed boundary as about 127 feet from an unidentified point at the junction of two roads. No evidence established the present location of that starting point, or the former presence and position of markers which may have existed in 1913. The uncertainty over point A therefore prevented the Tribunal from identifying the exact line.

5. Neither tribunal could determine a different line: Mr Farrow had made no such application and the evidence did not permit an alternative exact determination. The Chief Land Registrar was directed to delete the entries made pursuant to the First-tier Tribunal’s order. The parties’ titles therefore continue to show a general boundary.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): allowed Mr Farrow’s appeal and directed deletion of the determined-boundary entries.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): on 14 June 2022 directed the Chief Land Registrar to give effect to Mr Boag’s application for a determined boundary.