David Robert Todd & Anor v Richard Marsh & Ors

Section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 makes a boundary shown on a registered title plan a general boundary; it does not itself fix the exact line. The relevant transfer must be construed objectively and contextually. Physical features and other objective facts may assist where the description is unclear, but extrinsic evidence cannot contradict clear terms.

An appellate court should not lightly disturb a trial judge’s evaluation of factual, expert and site evidence. An informal boundary agreement requires actual agreement about the boundary. An agreement effectively transferring more than a trivial strip of land must comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed from an Order of Her Honour Judge Parker dated 25 June 2025, following a trial in the County Court at Hastings sitting at Guildford. The dispute concerned the boundary between Wyland Wood, owned by the appellants, and neighbouring land owned by the respondents.

The trial judge held that the boundary was the line shown in the registered title plans and historic conveyances, rather than the dog and deer proof fence. She also rejected the appellants’ case that emails concerning repairs to the fence created a binding boundary agreement. Permission to appeal was granted only on the boundary issue. The appeal concerned the general boundaries rule, the assessment of expert and extrinsic evidence, and the alleged agreement.

Appeal dismissed. The Order below was upheld. The boundary between Wyland Wood and the Marsh Land was the paper title boundary shown on the registered title plan, not the dog and deer proof fence.

1. General boundaries. Section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 establishes that a registered boundary is general and does not itself determine the exact line. The judge was wrong to state at [78] that the rule did not apply. Read as a whole, however, her judgment applied the correct approach: she considered the historic conveyances, the consistent title plans and the extrinsic evidence. The error was therefore one of expression and did not affect the result.
2. Construction and evidence. The relevant transfer was to be construed objectively against the surrounding factual background. The approach in Acco Properties Limited v Severn [2011] EWHC 1362 (Ch), Alan Wibberley v Insley [1990] 1 WLR 894 and Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873 permitted consideration of the historic conveyances and physical features, but did not permit clear documentary terms to be contradicted. The agreed expert evidence supported the paper boundary. The fact that the alternative construction would have left the retained Tapstone Land inaccessible was a powerful additional objective factor.
3. Appellate review. The trial judge had evaluated the whole body of factual and expert evidence and had inspected the site. Applying the warning in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani [2014] EWCA Civ 5 at [114], the appeal court should not review such evidence piecemeal or lightly interfere with the assessment of weight.
4. Boundary agreement. Informal boundary agreements may be binding, but there must be agreement about the location of the boundary. The references to a boundary fence, sharing repair costs and unlocking gates did not establish agreement where the discussions concerned repairs and Mr Baldwin had not consciously addressed the boundary. Further, under Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909, Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79 and Alder v White [2026] Ch 65, an agreement effectively transferring significant land required compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The disputed strip, about half an acre compared with Wyland Wood’s 2.7 acres, was not trivial. This provided an independent reason why any informal agreement could not bind successors.

All grounds of appeal were rejected. Consequential matters were left to be agreed or dealt with on the papers.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): Cawson J granted permission to appeal on 22 October 2025. Mr Justice Michael Green dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court Order.
2. County Court at Hastings (sitting at Guildford): Her Honour Judge Parker, following a four-day trial, held that the boundary was the paper title boundary rather than the dog and deer proof fence and rejected the alleged 2019 boundary agreement. Permission to appeal was refused on the separate Tapstone Land ownership issue.