Disputes between neighbours regarding the boundary line are matters which require careful consideration, historic conveyancing documents and expert evidence. Often neighbours will find themselves arguing as a consequence of where it is claimed that one neighbour has encroached on their neighbour’s land. This often leads to the souring of relations between them and a costly and lengthy dispute between neighbours where the determination of the boundary becomes much more hotly contested than they could have first imagined.
These issues arise because the boundary line between neighbouring properties is not legally clear by the title plans of the land provided by the Land Registry. The “area edged in red” for a particular “parcel” of land does not of itself show the exact boundary of a property and in fact, further enquiries of the position physically “on the ground” must be undertaken to seek to determine the exact location of the legal boundary between two neighbouring properties itself.
What happened in Cunningham v Holehouse?
The recent case of Cunningham v Holehouse [2026] UKFTT 00771 (PC) is a prime example of a neighbour dispute spiralling into a contest in respect of the precise location of the boundary line, so that it had to be determined by the First-Tier Tribunal.
The factual background of the case was as follows:
There was a strip of land sitting on the southern and western boundaries of two properties. The applicants (Mr & Mrs Cunningham) sought to determine the boundary using a determined boundary plan that had been prepared by their expert surveyor following a physical inspection. Likewise, their neighbours, the respondents (Mr & Mrs Holehouse), instructed their own expert surveyor to map out the boundary from their physical inspection. Each expert was then asked to agree a joint plan, which they did.
A shed and carport both were features found at or near the boundary. It was found that the joint plan depicted the boundary as running straight through the shed.
How did the Tribunal determine the property boundary?
The Tribunal reiterated the proposition that the boundary line on a title plan is usually regarded as what is called a “general boundary”; it does not show and cannot of itself be evidence of the exact line of the boundary. The starting point used by the Tribunal was the deed which created the initial boundary between the two neighbouring properties that the boundary bisected.
The original conveyance as the starting point
The Tribunal therefore used the starting point as the Conveyance dated 10th September 1987, as rectified by a Deed on 25th July 2000 (“the Conveyance”). The Tribunal went on to state that in determining the boundary using the Conveyance, consideration must be given to the intention of the parties quoting Butler-Sloss LJ’s statement of “what would the reasonable layman think he was in fact buying” (Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873).
There are a number of important considerations to be taken into account following the decision from this case.
Firstly, as mentioned above the Tribunal used the Conveyance as the starting point in determining the boundary. However, the Tribunal further stated that the reasonable man test must be used as if the person considering the boundary was looking at the property when the original Conveyance was created. This was important in this case because the original Conveyance was dated 1987 later rectified by a Deed dated 2000. The Tribunal’s rationale for this was that the strip of land was conveyed in 1987 and so consideration should be given to the original parties’ intention as opposed to any amendments made later to the land.
What does ‘for identification purposes only’ mean on a conveyance plan?
Secondly, the Tribunal set out that where a parcels clause found within a conveyance states that the property is conveyed “more particularly described” (or to similar effect) on the plan then the plan should be used to define the land being conveyed. On the other hand if the plan is used “for identification purposes only” then reliance on the written description in the parcels clause takes precedence. In this case, the plan annexed to the Conveyance was marked “for identification purposes only” and so the written descriptions of the land in the parcels clause would have prevailed over the plan. However, the parcels clause in the Conveyance gave a very vague description of the land despite it prevailing over the plan. The Applicants therefore attempted to rely on the fact that the marking of “15 feet” on the plan annexed to the Conveyance should be used as an exact measurement. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the measurement is indicative only, in the same way that the plan was. The position is therefore that where a plan annexed to a conveyance states “for identification purposes only”, it (or any markings on it) cannot be used to accurately define the location of the boundary or area of land it refers to.
Can physical features help determine a property boundary?
Thirdly, the Tribunal also determined that the physical location of a boundary structure, in this case a fence, was good evidence to assist in deciding where the boundary line was. This is because it illustrated the intention of the original parties’ to the Conveyance as it was erected very shortly after the conveyance of the two parcels of land and so close in time to the date of the Conveyance.
Key lessons for resolving boundary disputes
The lessons derived from this case are therefore as follows:
1.The starting point for the Tribunal in defining and locating the boundary of land will always be the first available document where the boundary in question was first created, such as the first conveyance.
2. When reviewing these original documents, the test used to locate the boundary is what a reasonable layman thinks he was in fact buying.
3. Where an original conveyance uses a later deed to rectify the plans, the reasonable man test should be applied as if looking at the property at the time of the first document so that the later deed must be read as if it was part of the original conveyance.
4. Where a plan annexed to a conveyance is marked “for identification purposes only” it cannot be used to override the description of the land (or boundary line in respect of it) even if the plan provides more detail than the relevant clauses of the conveyance.