Drawing the line: the binding nature and formation of boundary agreements

A boundary dispute is a disagreement between two or more property owners related to the exact location of the dividing line, known as the boundary, between their respective properties. Conflict between neighbours is typically boundary-related and can be stressful, costly and protracted to resolve. Some neighbourly relations break down irretrievably as a result, leaving some with no option but to sell up and move on. 

The binding nature of boundary agreements and how they can arise was recently explored by the High Court in the recent case of Crea v Camp. We acted for the defendants, the Camps, in their successful High Court bid to uphold the first-instance County Court decision that the parties had entered into a binding boundary agreement.  

In this article, we provide a background to the case and highlight what landowners can take away from this High Court judgment.

Background to the Crea v Camp case

The case related to a long-standing boundary dispute in which the Creas alleged that part of the Camps’ bungalow and garage encroached on their land. 

In December 2016, the parties exchanged correspondence relating to the boundary. The Camps initially suggested jointly instructing a surveyor, Mr Brown, to assess the disputed boundary on the basis that the parties agreed beforehand to accept the boundary as determined. The Creas’ reply “did not demur from the Camps’ proposals and gave every indication of accepting them”. 

After undertaking an inspection of the physical boundary and review of relevant property documents in 2017, Mr Brown concluded that:

• The exact legal boundary line could not be accurately reproduced as there were many changes to the physical features that defined it.
• It would be ridiculous to suggest that either party should demolish parts of permanent buildings or structures which have been in place for such a long time.
• The best solution would be for him to produce a new determined boundary plan.

The Creas were unhappy with Mr Brown’s report, alleged that the findings were biased and declared that they would not be bound by them. They subsequently commenced proceedings against the Camps. 

After a failed summary judgment application by the Camps, the matter went to trial in the County Court in 2024. The trial judge found that the parties’ correspondence in 2016 constituted a binding agreement to jointly instruct Mr Brown and to accept his determination.  

The Creas appealed this judgment and the case advanced to the High Court. Here, Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed the appeal on the basis that there had been a valid offer and acceptance in contract law which constituted a binding boundary agreement.

The judge held that statements that are not intended to vary the terms of the offer, or to add new terms, do not disqualify the acceptance, even where they do not precisely match the words of the offer. Therefore, in failing to object to any of the terms set out in the Camps’ letter setting out their proposal as to how the boundary should be determined, the Creas were bound to accept Mr Brown’s findings. 

Key takeaways for landowners

The High Court judgment serves as a salient reminder that:

• There are two types of boundary agreements. The first is a contract to convey land and the second is an agreement to identify and confirm the boundary line which is type of agreement held to have been reached between the Creas and the Camps. As the latter is not purporting to convey land , it does not need to be in writing and signed by the parties - a requirement of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
• Linked to the above, seemingly informal correspondence and conduct, in this instance the parties’ letter exchange in December 2016, can give rise to an inference of contractual offer and acceptance. Parties need to be clear and unequivocal in their communications about discussing a joint expert.
• Courts favour boundary agreements as 'acts of peace' that avoid costly litigation and restore neighbourly relations;- jointly instructed surveyors can and should be used to determine boundary disputes as a means of avoiding costly litigation if at all possible. However, parties need to be understand that courts will enforce boundary agreements even if, as in the case of Mr Brown, the expert is unable to identify the precise legal boundary and proposes a boundary line as a “practical solution to an unanswerable question”. 

Ashfords' property disputes team regularly advise clients on boundary disputes affecting all types of land, whether that be residential, commercial or agricultural. Our objective is to help clients to resolve any uncertainty or dispute about where their property’s legal boundary lies and boundary agreements are commonly used to do this, thereby avoiding the cost and stress of court proceedings.  

For more information, please contact our property disputes team.