General boundaries rule succeeds in boundary dispute between neighbours

The First-Tier Tribunal recently dismissed an application to determine the exact boundary line of a title in the recent case of Cunningham v Holehouse [2026] UKFTT 771.

The case concerned the application made by Mr and Mrs Cunningham, who wished to determine a boundary line to their property based on an expert plan they had obtained. A determined boundary application is just that: an application to the Land Registry to confirm the exact line of a boundary between two parcels of land, which must be supported by evidence. It is different to a boundary agreement, which is when neighbouring landowners decide between themselves where the legal boundary is, record that agreement, and register the agreement at the Land Registry. Further information on boundary agreements can be found here: Successors in title bound by predecessors’ boundary demarcation agreement, notwithstanding lack of knowledge

Boundary agreements and determined boundary applications are required if landowners want greater certainty on the exact location of their legal boundaries. This is because the general boundaries rule applies to Land Registry title plans – the red line shows the general location of the boundary, and not the exact legal boundary. Sometimes the exact location will be determined from an earlier conveyance, and such evidence can be used to support an application for a determined boundary or boundary agreement, but the title plan itself is not definitive.

In this case, Mr and Mrs Cunningham instructed an expert to produce a report confirming the exact location of the boundary within the area in dispute. Mr and Mrs Holehouse also instructed an expert, who had a different opinion on the location of the boundary.

As part of the hearing, the Tribunal considered the conveyancing history, in order to understand when and how the boundary was created. Mr and Mrs Cunningham claimed that the boundary in dispute was created by a Conveyance in 1987 (“Conveyance”), as rectified by a Deed of Rectification in 2000 (“Deed”). Mr and Mrs Holehouse accepted that the Conveyance was the starting point, but their submissions also included an argument that the boundary in question had been created prior to 1987, and they claimed it didn’t form part of the original estate. The Tribunal found for Mr and Mrs Cunningham on this point and proceeded to review the 1987 Conveyance.

The plan to the Conveyance was incorrect, which had been discovered years earlier, and was what led to the Deed in 2000. The plan to the Deed was therefore treated as the plan to the Conveyance. The Deed helpfully included specific measurements with the words “Distance B-C-15 feet” to the location in question. Mr and Mrs Cunningham asserted that this measurement was the boundary, and sought to determine the boundary in this location. Mr and Mrs Holehouse disagreed. They argued the measurement should not be taken as absolute as it was not possible to determine where the 15 feet should be measured. They also argued that physical features on the ground at the time of the Conveyance should be considered (which included a shed and carport).

The Tribunal considered the evidence put before it as to what was on the land and boundary dispute at or around the time of the Conveyance. Aerial photographs were submitted which showed a shed, carport, and fence over the years. Witness evidence was also submitted as to whether these physical features were in situ at the time of the Conveyance.

The Tribunal concluded the following:

• that reference to 15 feet within the Deed was indicative only, as the plan to the Deed included the words “for identification purposes only”, which suggested the plan was not intended to be exact and determinative;
• the shed and carport were present at the time of the Conveyance, and a reasonable person would determine those to be within the strip of land, rather than the boundary running through the middle of those features;
• the fence was most likely erected after the 1987 Conveyance, as the Conveyance contained the covenant to erect the fence itself; and
• the fence (which had been replaced by a hedge in 2002), when erected, was intended to represent the boundary.

Mr and Mrs Cunningham’s application did not seek a boundary in line with these conclusions. As a result, Mr and Mrs Cunningham’s application to determine the boundary based on the Conveyance was cancelled, so the title plan to the land remained subject to the general boundaries rule only. In addition, Mr and Mrs Cunningham were ordered to pay Mr and Mrs Holehouse’s costs of the proceedings. This is because unlike other types of Tribunal proceedings, the usual rule in land registration cases in the Tribunal is that the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs of the successful party.

It is unusual for determined boundary applications to reach the Tribunal. The case provides a helpful summary of the issues the Tribunal will consider in disputed applications. Applications should not be made without full consideration of the issues and evidence, particularly in light of the potential for adverse cost consequences. As is usual in neighbourly disputes, the Tribunal encouraged the parties to seek to reach a settlement, rather than engage in further litigation.

Please contact Emma Preece or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact if you have any queries.