Boundaries - They're Not Always Where You Think!

When we purchase a property, we can usually see the extent of what we’re buying by looking at the neat red lines on an attached plan to the title.  Everything inside the red lines denotes and guarantees the extent of what we are buying, right?  Wrong.  This was the expensive lesson for the defendant in Clapham & Ors v Narga (2024).  Costs in this matter have exceeded £300,000.  The story begins in Thrussington, Leicestershire and ended at the Court of Appeal.  

The Claphams and their neighbours the Wrights had lived next to a brook in Thrussington which separated their properties from the adjoining property, Brook Barn.   There was a fence on the north bank of the brook, effectively giving title of the land up to that fence to the Claphams and the Wrights.  This was obtained by adverse possession that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions, even if they are not the original owner, by occupying and using the land for a continuous period of time without the permission of the legal owner.  One of the factors of any adverse possession is the claimant's use of the land must be obvious and apparent, so that the legal owner could reasonably discover it if they were paying attention.  This use of the land by the Claphams and the Wrights had continued for a number of decades until Ms Narga purchased Brook Barn in 2020.  Looking at the plan of her property, this showed Brook Barn included the south side of the brook and even went through the Clapham and Wrights gardens.  Emboldened by this, she demanded they pay her a licence fee for using the northern parts of their gardens, and then unilaterally erected a fence through their gardens and began clearing the land on both banks of the brook.  At this point, you can see where this is headed.  

Proceedings were commenced by the Claphams and the Wrights in 2020 and came to trial in March 2022 where they claimed they owned the disputed brook land under the doctrine on adverse possession.  However, the judge found that the various sales of Brook Barn after 2003 (after the Land Registration Act 2002 came in to effect) destroyed the Claphams’ and Wrights’ possessory title claims because their occupation would not have been obvious to the owners of Brook Barn and their interest in the north bank therefore did not override the registered disposition of it, including to Ms Narga when she purchased it in 2020.  Ms Narga claimed the LRA 2002 reset the boundary and there was no obvious sign the brook was not in her possession when she viewed it prior to the sale because the fence has deteriorated in places and this was coupled with overgrown bushes, meaning the use of the land by the Claphams and the Wrights had not been obvious.  This led to a first appeal by the Claphams and the Wrights but this was dismissed.  

This led to the most recent appeal which turned both previous rulings on their head.  The Court of Appeal confirmed the Claphams and Wrights were correct because:

1. The “general boundaries” operated on the first registration of Brook Barn in 2002;
2. This meant that registration only confirmed who owned Brook Barn, not what they owned; 
3. Although the title plan showed the boundary of her property following the south bank of the brook, that plan was irrelevant to where Ms Narga claimed the boundary lay; and
4. The boundary must be determined by considering the history of the matter and the position on the ground.

In essence, this means boundaries marked on plans are not exact, only indicative, or approximate.  This has been the position for over 150 years.  Nugee LJ hearing the recent appeal with Jackson LJ and Newey LJ commented:

“Title plans do not pretend to be accurate, and according them significance ….could engender just the sorts of mischief which the Land Transfer commission identified in 1870 and which the general boundaries rule has since sought to avoid.”  

He went on to say:

“The purpose of a filed plan is to identify the property concerned, namely Brook Barn, not to identify where its boundaries are. The whole point of the general boundaries rule, formerly found in rule 278 of the 1925 Rules and now found in s. 60 LRA 2002, is that the filed plan does not determine the exact line of the boundary. As Newey LJ has explained, that was a principle first introduced in 1875 precisely to avoid the disputes that had bedevilled registration under the 1862 Act.  So how does one determine in a case such as this where the boundary actually is? I think the answer has to be by looking at where the boundary was when the title was first registered, that is here on 19 March 2003.”

Furthermore, Jackson LJ commented when looking at the overall cost of this dispute that Ms Narga should have consulted the Claphams and the Wrights about the boundaries before purchasing Brook Barn.  He said:

“Had she done so, this boundary dispute may not have arisen, and much trouble and expense might have been avoided”.

This judgment underlines the importance for any buyer of not relying strictly upon where those red lines are as they are no more than indicative, which has been the case for many years.  Whilst one can see why Ms Narga claimed she had title to land which fell within the red lines, this is a reminder that the position on the ground may be rather different.  So the lesson is caveat emptor rules again.