The well-worn saying “good fences make good neighbours” is often trotted out during boundary disputes, to reinforce the value of clear dividing lines between properties. But when Robert Frost popularised the saying in his poem Mending Wall, he was challenging this instinct for barriers – suggesting they can create division where none is needed.
And that’s a useful reminder in boundary disputes, where it’s often one neighbour’s rigid view of where the dividing line should be that sets things off. When tensions rise, a measured approach – rather than digging in, literally or legally – can make all the difference.
Whether it’s a hedge, a fence or a garden path at the centre of the row, legal proceedings can quickly escalate. Not only are boundary disputes notoriously complex to resolve, but they can sour neighbourly relations and lead to significant costs. The courts have emphasised that when it comes to defending your patch. Staying calm and knowing when to step back could be the best approach.
Two recent cases fought all the way to the highest courts have highlighted the challenges around long-term use of land when it leads to a dispute over rightful ownership.
In the latest decision, the Supreme Court clarified how the law should apply when the legal boundary has shifted from its original position. The case concerned a modest strip of land, just 1.4 metres at its widest point, yet the legal battle was fought across three different courts before final resolution.
A previous owner had put up a fence and planted a hedge along what he understood to be the boundary between the two properties. This included a small strip of land belonging to next door, but the error was left unchallenged until almost two decades later, by which time the subsequent owner had built an extension with a footprint that included the small patch of ground.
In situations where someone occupies land without permission, they may be able to claim adverse possession and apply to the Land Registry to be registered as the legal owner. Under the Land Registration Act 2002, this is possible after ten years of possession, where the occupier reasonably believes they own the land.
The central issue in this case was whether that ten-year period of belief had to be the ten years immediately before the application – or whether it could be any ten-year period during the time the land was possessed. The Supreme Court confirmed that it did not need to be the most recent ten years, opening the door for more successful claims where the belief in ownership changed over time.
Meanwhile, another long-running case saw court costs hit £300,000 by the time the case was heard in the Court of Appeal. Again, the case involved a narrow strip of land – this time a small stream which ran between the properties, and which was fenced in by a new homeowner after they moved in.
Long-standing neighbours argued they were entitled to register the stream as their own because they had used it without challenge for a significant period before the new homeowner arrived and while the lower courts ruled against them, they were successful on appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decision found that even though the land had not been formally claimed, squatters’ rights had been established long before the property title was first registered in 2003 after the Land Registration Act 2002 came into force.
These cases proved a costly reminder that property deeds are not always conclusive proof of the extent of ownership, because long term possession may affect those rights. When disputes arise, it’s vital to seek early legal advice and to consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation. Tempers often run high in boundary cases, but aggressive tactics rarely pay off and can make things worse.
While mediation may not suit every situation, it’s often quicker, cheaper and less damaging than going to court, particularly when you’ll be seeing your neighbour over the garden fence for years to come.
As for prevention, a thorough review of property deeds, title plans and boundaries – particularly when buying or selling a property – can reduce the risk of disputes later. For those with shared access or unclear boundary features, a formal agreement or updated Land Registry plan can also be a wise investment.
Once you’re in a legal battle over your borders, even the narrowest sliver of land can come at a high price. It’s also worth remembering that any dispute with a neighbour, including over boundaries, must be declared when selling a property. Failing to do so could lead to legal action from a buyer later down the line, so even if tensions ease, any dispute can have lasting implications.
To discuss this, or any other Property Litigation related matter with Simon directly, please call 01483 887766, email info@hartbrown.co.uk or start a live chat today.
*This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.
