No Trivial Matter: What Todd v Marsh Tells Us About Informal Boundary Agreements

Boundary disputes between neighbouring landowners continue to make their way through the Courts and Tribunals. A recurring question is the extent to which informality in correspondence or documents can give rise to a binding boundary agreement. In the 2025 decision in Bishop v. Jacques, the Upper Tribunal upheld a decision that a seemingly informal and historic memorandum signed by a non-owner was valid and effective in recording the agreed boundary line.  For more on this decision, see our Insight: Boundary agreement signed by husband of property owner deemed valid and binding on successors in title.

The recent decision in Todd and another v Marsh and others [2026] EWHC 1701 (Ch) provides yet more guidance on the formalities required for boundary agreements to be enforceable, particularly in light of the statutory requirements in Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. This requires any contract to sell or transfer land to be in writing, contain all agreed terms in one document (or each exchanged copy), and be signed by or on behalf of each party.

The appellants owned “Wyland Wood” in Robertsbridge, East Sussex. The respondents owned the neighbouring “Marsh Land.” The case concerned the position of the boundary between the two properties: the appellants contended that a “dog and deer proof fence” (DDPF), which ran parallel to the paper title boundary, but 6.37-11.37 metres on the respondents’ side, constituted the true boundary. They relied upon a 2019 email exchange with the previous owner, Mr Baldwin, concerning storm damage repairs to the DDPF, in which the parties referred to “your side” and “our side” of the “boundary fence” and agreed to split the repair cost.

At first instance, the County Court held that the boundary was the paper title boundary and that no binding boundary agreement had been reached. Permission to appeal was granted on two grounds, with the appellants arguing that due to the application of the general boundaries rule under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the existence of a boundary agreement, the decision was wrong. The “general boundaries” rule establishes that, unless a boundary has been formally determined, the boundary of a property as shown on the title documents is a general boundary only, meaning the title plan does not fix the exact legal line of the boundary.

On the general boundaries ground, the High Court held that the County Court had in substance applied the general boundaries rule correctly. The 2018 Transfer (transferring Wyland Wood out of the common title which included Marsh Land) was construed by reference to consistent historic conveyances dating back to 1970, and the County Court was entitled to conclude that the transfer was clear and unambiguous. Both parties’ expert surveyors agreed the paper title boundary followed an old tree line, not the DDPF.

On the boundary agreement ground, the High Court held there was no evidence of a conscious meeting of minds specifically directed at fixing the location of the boundary. The 2019 emails concerned only the practical repair of a fence, and Mr Baldwin (former owner) gave credible evidence that he had been dealing with the matter in a “neighbourly” manner without turning his mind to the boundary. In any event, even if a boundary agreement had been reached, the disputed strip, which was approximately half an acre, representing some 18.5% of Wyland Wood’s 2.7 acres, was not “trivial”; it was a substantial portion of the land. Therefore, any such agreement would have needed to comply with the formalities of Section 2 of the 1989 Act and be in writing, which the informal email exchange did not satisfy.

The decision serves as an important reminder that, for an informal boundary agreement to be enforceable without complying with the statutory formalities, two conditions must be satisfied:

• There must be clear evidence of a conscious, mutual meeting of minds specifically directed at fixing the location of the boundary (not just dealing with practical matters such as fence repairs); and 
• The land affected must be genuinely trivial in the context of the wider property. 

This case reinforces the principle that informal correspondence about fences or repairs should be treated with considerable caution as evidence of a boundary agreement. Where a genuine boundary agreement affects more than a trivial area of land, it must be properly documented in writing (and otherwise compliant with the statutory requirements) to be enforceable and to bind successors in title.

This Insight does not constitute legal advice, and you should seek advice on the specific circumstances of your case.

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