Boundary Agreements and Successors in Title – Page summary
Bishop v Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC): Case Summary, Analysis, and Implications for Boundary Disputes –
Bishop v Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC) is a significant decision from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) that reaffirms the binding nature of informal boundary demarcation agreements under English land law.
Delivered on 9 May 2025 by Deputy Chamber President Martin Rodger KC, the judgment upholds long-standing principles that such agreements can fix uncertain boundaries without formal deeds or registration, even when signed by an agent, and remain enforceable against successors in title.
Ask your own question about boundary agreements here
Background and Facts
The case centres on a boundary dispute in Battle, East Sussex, between a strip of land known as “The Avenue” (owned by appellant Graham Porteous Bishop) and the garden of Beacon Cottage (owned by respondent Linda Margaret Jaques). The Avenue is a roadway providing access to Mr Bishop’s property and a potential development site. Beacon Cottage was carved out of the former North Lodge estate in 1949. The conveyance plan showed a solid line depicting a boundary feature, likely a row of pine trees along The Avenue, with a right of way over the roadway.
A contemporaneous 1949 planning application for a garage at Beacon Cottage reinforced this depiction, showing The Avenue bounded by a low hedge to the west, the pine trees, and an eastward hedge (the “1949 hedge”).
By 1970, a title report highlighted a dispute over ownership of the pine trees and the strip they stood on. The then-owners of Beacon Cottage (Mr and Mrs Heughan) and North Lodge (Mr Noble) each preferred the land to belong to the other.
In 1971, after Mrs Dewar purchased Beacon Cottage, she and Mr Noble signed a Memorandum of Agreement stating that “the strip of land and the trees thereon” belonged to Beacon Cottage. This resolved the uncertainty by fixing the boundary west of the pine trees.The pine trees were destroyed in the 1987 hurricane. Beacon Cottage’s title was registered in 1977 and transferred to Mrs Jaques in 1982. Mr Bishop acquired North Lodge (including The Avenue) in 1992.
In 2020, he applied to the Land Registry to determine the boundary along the 1949 hedge line—further east than the former pine trees—potentially widening The Avenue for development. Mrs Jaques objected, leading to referral to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
The Core Dispute
Mr Bishop contended the true boundary followed the 1949 hedge. Mrs Jaques argued it was immediately west of the pine trees, relying on three grounds: (1) the 1949 conveyance plan; (2) the 1971 Memorandum as a binding demarcation agreement; and (3) adverse possession of the strip by her predecessors since at least 1980.
First-tier Tribunal Decision
Judge Thorowgood dismissed Mr Bishop’s application. The 1971 Memorandum was decisive as a boundary demarcation agreement under principles from Neilson v Poole (1969) and Nata Lee Ltd v Abid. It was not a transfer requiring a deed but an agreement fixing the existing boundary. Mr Dewar (Mrs Dewar’s husband) acted as her agent with authority, binding her and successors.Alternatively, the 1949 conveyance boundary aligned with the pine trees, and if not, adverse possession had occurred since 1980, vesting title in Beacon Cottage before the Land Registration Act 2002 regime.
Appeal to the Upper Tribunal
Mr Bishop appealed on four grounds: (1) misinterpretation of the 1949 conveyance; (2) procedural irregularity in agency findings; (3) insufficient evidence of Mr Dewar’s authority; and (4) ambiguity in the Memorandum, requiring a deed under s.52(1) Law of Property Act 1925.
Upper Tribunal Ruling
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal entirely.
Ground 1: Irrelevant, as the 1971 agreement superseded original conveyance intentions.
Ground 2: No procedural unfairness; Mrs Jaques’ statements alleged agency, and evidence (including Mrs Dewar’s testimony) confirmed consent. Mr Bishop had cross-examination opportunities.
Ground 3: Authority established by conduct and evidence; boundary agreements require no special formalities where they demarcate rather than transfer land (Neilson v Poole; Nata Lee Ltd; White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392).
Ground 4: The Memorandum was unambiguous in context (referring to the disputed pine tree strip). It was a demarcation agreement presuming the agreed line reflected the existing boundary, binding without deed or plan (White v Alder [53]-[54]).
The Tribunal endorsed s.60 Land Registration Act 2002 for determined boundary applications but emphasised private agreements’ role in resolving uncertainties. Adverse possession was not addressed, as the Memorandum sufficed.
Key Legal Principles
The decision confirms:Boundary demarcation agreements need no formalities if they clarify existing boundaries rather than transfer land (Neilson v Poole; Nata Lee Ltd; White v Alder).
Such agreements bind successors in title, even without knowledge, by presuming the agreed line always defined the estates.
Agency by conduct suffices; explicit authority evidence is unnecessary if consent is shown.
Trivial land transfers within agreements do not trigger deed requirements.
Implications for Landowners, Buyers, and Developers
Bishop v Jaques reinforces legal certainty for historic boundary settlements. Informal written agreements, even decades old and without plans, can bind future owners and override title plan ambiguities (which are general boundaries under s.60).
Practical lessons include:
Document boundary resolutions in writing with signatures.
Inquire about past agreements during purchases.
Consider Land Registry recording for determined boundaries.
Courts favour upholding negotiated resolutions over litigation.
The ruling aligns with White v Alder and promotes stability in property titles, particularly in rural or historic estates with uncertain features.
In conclusion,
Bishop v Jaques [2025] UKUT 141 (LC) strengthens the enforceability of boundary agreements, providing clarity for disputes involving general boundaries, agency, and successor liability. It underscores English law’s preference for private resolutions in land registration matters.
David Buchanan is a property litigator, conveyancer and private client lawyer with 20 years experience (or more!) in the field. He is currently a consultant solicitor for Taylor Rose.
Next article – how Human Rights Act Law affects boundary issues – whether or not you like it.