There had been a dispute as to the correct boundary between two properties in North Yorkshire. The land had been in common ownership until 1973. The 1973 conveyance showed the boundary in a position which the claimants said was determinative. The defendants said that the position of the boundary was different and was along the line of a fence erected by the claimants’ predecessor, which boundary had been impliedly agreed by the parties’ respective predecessors in title.
Held: Acquiescence in the erection of the fence along a particular line had created a boundary agreement. The parties must be taken to have agreed that the fence represented the boundary. The judge had been entitled to have regard to a number of matters, including fencing covenants in the conveyance to the defendants, the fact that members of the same family were involved with both properties and to the whole course of the parties’ conduct.
The court looked at what was necessary to suggest the compromise of a land dispute: ‘In summary, in my judgment, the judge was right to find an agreement between Mr Vane and the defendants. It is not strictly necessary for a court to have to find an offer and an acceptance. The course of the parties’ conduct, that is to say, Mr Vane and the defendants, should be looked at and if, on the balance of probabilities, an agreement is established, that is sufficient. In my judgment, the conduct of Mr Vane and the defendants does establish such an agreement.’
(Orse Stevenson v Johnson)
Judges:
Pill, Clarke LJJ, Bennett J
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Civ B4, [2000] Estates Gazette Case Summaries 92, [2000] EGCS 92
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969
Significance of Boundary agreements
The parties, neighbours, disputed the boundary between their gardens. In a conveyance of land where the plan is stated to be for identification purposes only, the effect of those words: ‘Seems . . to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where . .
Cited – Webb v Nightingale CA 8-Mar-1957
A boundary line which the parties had agreed and marked out could supersede a plan on a conveyance expressly said to be for identification only. Lord Denning: ‘It seems to me that the line of white stakes with the white peg in the south-east corner . .
Cited – Willson v Greene (Moss third party) ChD 1971
The court could take into account objective surrounding circumstances indicating where the boundary line had been agreed and marked out by the parties. Thus extrinsic evidence of where the land was identified by pegs was admissible and the extrinsic . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hawkes v Howe CA 29-Jul-2002
The parties were neighbours. One asserted that the other had trespassed in a building by 2.5 inches. The defendant appealed an award of damages. A garage had been built over the boundary by a previous occupier but by agreement. The new owner . .
Cited – Rees v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or National Beauty LRA 5-Mar-2007
Boundary Dispute . .
Cited – Haigh, Haigh v Sturman FTTPC 25-Nov-2013
Boundary Dispute . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.183147
