Land boundaries: Don’t be over-reliant on the registered title plan
The Court of Appeal (CoA) had to assess the limit of Section 75 of the Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 and general boundaries rules in adverse possession.
Background:
The case concerned boundary lines between a number of adjoining properties in Leicestershire. The first and second appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Clapham, had owned 24 The Green since 1996, while 25 and 26 The Green had belonged to the third and fourth appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Wright, since 1988. Ms. Narga owned Brook Barn since 2020 which lies just to the north of nos. 24, 25 and 26.
The disputed land is the northern edge of the south bank of the brook and a fence which stands at the top of the slope to the north of the brook. The contention arose from discrepancies between the actual physical boundaries and those depicted in the title plans. This was compounded by historical adverse possession claims. Ms. Narga’s Land Registry title plan clearly showed that the boundary of her property ran to the south of the brook and through the appellants’ gardens.
In 2022, the County Court ruled that the Claphams and Wrights had acquired the disputed land through adverse possession, but this ruling was nullified under the LRA 2002 when Ms. Narga bought Brook Barn which includes the disputed land. The Claphams and Wrights appealed, although this appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2023. They appealed to the CoA.
Decision:
The CoA overturned the High Court's decision and held that Section 75 of the LRA 1925 does not apply because the Claphams and Wrights established ownership through adverse possession before Brook Barn was registered in 2003. The Court came to this conclusion after analysing the interplay between adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1980 and the LRAs of 1925 and 2002.
Adverse possession effectively redrew the boundary of the land so that the disputed land did not form part of Brook Barn when it was registered in 2003. Brook Barn’s registered title plan was rendered irrelevant due to the ‘general boundaries rule’. Indeed, despite Brook Barn’s registered title plan, which included the disputed land, this did not mean that this parcel of land was part of the property. The title plan only depicted general boundaries rather than the exact location of the boundaries and was therefore not definitive as established under Section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002. Any discrepancies thus had to be resolved through legal analysis rather than an overreliance on the title plan. As Lord Justice Newey puts it “Unless the exact line of a boundary has been determined pursuant to what is now Rule 118 of the 2003 Rules (which will only rarely be the case), the title plan is "deemed to indicate the general boundaries only" (to quote from Rule 278(1) of the 1925 Rules) and will "not determine the exact line of the boundary" (per Section 60(2) of the LRA 2002).” The Court continued by noting “The whole point of the general boundaries rule, formerly found in Rule 278 of the 1925 Rules and now found in s. 60 LRA 2002, is that the filed plan does not determine the exact line of the boundary”. As Newey LJ explained, that was a “principle first introduced in 1875 precisely to avoid the disputes that had bedevilled registration under the 1862 Act”.
The general boundaries rule operated on the first registration of Brook Barn in 2003. As a result, Ms. Narga’s title was conclusive as to who owned Brook Barn but not the extent of what they owned. Indeed, to determine the boundaries of Brook Barn, it was important to look at the extant boundaries in 2003. By that time, the neighbours “had been in undisputed possession of their respective properties for 12 years, which gave them ownership of the land they each possessed, with the result that the boundary between their lands would follow the de facto position on the ground without the need for anyone to go back to the historic conveyances by which their properties were first separated.”
Implications:
This ruling contains important observations regarding the interaction of the LRA and the law of adverse possession. This decision clarifies that boundaries shown on registered title plans are not definitive. When purchasing property, it is important to conduct a physical inspection to ensure there are no discrepancies between the boundaries on the plan and the actual boundaries of the existing fence lines. As such, it is always better to raise enquiries before any sale is finalised.
This case is especially useful regarding unregistered lands, reiterating that the principle of adverse possession still plays an important role in the law of boundaries, even if the LRA 2002 is limited as regards such doctrine. However, the Court also acknowledged that if a title plan clearly shows the boundaries and is registered, it could still potentially defeat an adverse possession claim.
The case also offers a useful reminder of the importance of consulting with the neighbour to avoid unnecessary expenses. As the Court noted, “Ms. Narga could have consulted the neighbouring landowners before, rather than after, purchasing Brook Barn. Had she done so, this boundary dispute may not have arisen, and much trouble and expense might have been avoided.”
