Paul Byrne & Anor v William George James Archer & Anor

In a boundary dispute, registered title plans generally show only general boundaries. The starting point is the conveyance or other instrument by which the parcels were created, construed in its factual context. Physical features, subsequent conduct and established presumptions may assist, but none is automatically conclusive.

A boundary demarcation agreement identifies an uncertain boundary rather than transferring land. It is binding on successors in title, whether or not they knew of it, because it defines the extent of the land conveyed. The hedge-and-ditch presumption does not apply where the alleged ditch is not shown to be artificial or to have been created after the boundary. Maintenance of an existing boundary feature, without more, does not establish adverse possession.

The claim concerned ownership of two boundary hedges between neighbouring properties. The claimants alleged that the hedges were jointly owned and relied on paper title, estoppel by deed, adverse possession and alleged boundary agreements. The defendants claimed exclusive ownership and counterclaimed accordingly.

The court determined the original legal boundaries, considered whether later conveyances or adverse possession had altered them, and decided whether alleged 2006 and 2019 boundary agreements were binding. It also considered claims in trespass, private nuisance and deceit.

1. Original boundaries. The registration of Hillsway and Brookfields did not fix the exact boundary lines. Under section 76 of the Land Registration Act 1925 and rules 276 and 278 of the Land Registration Rules 1925, the filed plans showed general boundaries only. The starting point was the Inclosure Award by which the parcels were created.
2. The Southern Hedge was more likely than not planted by the allottee of Brookfields in about 1854, on that allottee’s land and at its extremity. The Southern Boundary therefore ran along the northern edge of the hedge, which belonged exclusively to the defendants. The alleged ditch was not proved to be an artificial ditch created with the hedge, so the hedge-and-ditch reasoning did not independently determine the boundary.
3. The Western Boundary could not be traced to an identifiable conveyance. The evidence showed a natural, meandering depression rather than a man-made ditch. The hedge-and-ditch and ad medium filum aquae presumptions therefore did not apply. The ‘T’ marks on the Inclosure Award Map had no fixed legal meaning and were not conclusive of ownership. The Western Boundary ran through the centre of the hedge, but the later boundary agreement transferred the narrow strip on its eastern side to the defendants.
4. The later Brookfields conveyances did not alter the Southern Boundary. Their mixed and ambiguous descriptions, read in context, were not intended to reserve a useless strip between the centre of the hedge and its northern edge. The modern contextual approach to construction supported that conclusion.
5. Maintenance of an existing hedge, even if carried out under a maintenance obligation, did not amount to the exclusive control required for adverse possession. The claims based on adverse possession were dismissed.
6. The 2006 planning discussions did not establish a boundary agreement. The contemporary documents showed a shared understanding that the Southern Hedge belonged to the defendants and no dispute requiring demarcation had then arisen.
7. The 2019 pre-contract exchanges did establish an express or implied boundary demarcation agreement. The executors agreed that the disputed hedges were owned by the defendants in order to resolve the dispute and permit the sale of Hillsway to proceed. Applying White v Alder, the agreement was binding on the claimants as successors in title irrespective of knowledge.
8. Since the defendants owned the hedges, the trespass and injunction claims fell away. Unperformed threats did not constitute an actionable private nuisance, and the claim that the continuing dispute was itself a nuisance also failed. The deceit claim failed because the defendants honestly believed their ownership assertions, did not intend reliance by the claimants, and the claimants did not rely on those assertions.
9. The court declared that the Southern Boundary ran along the northern edge of the Southern Hedge and the Western Boundary along the eastern edge of the Western Hedge. The claims were dismissed.