Boundary disputes must cause more neighbourly tension than anything under the sun. A recent High Court decision could help parties wishing to avoid litigation, by its ruling that the determination of a jointly-instructed boundary surveyor can be binding.
Crea v Camp [2025] EWHC 2638 (KB)
Like so many before them, Mr & Mrs Crea and Mr & Mrs Camp found themselves in a dispute over the boundary between their houses, with the Creas arguing that the Camps’ bungalow and garage encroached onto their land. In a letter of 6 December 2016, the Creas suggested they jointly instruct a boundary surveyor to assess the boundary. The Camps replied on 9 December agreeing with the proposal, and suggesting that they agree beforehand to be bound by the surveyor’s decision as to the route of the boundary. The Creas replied on 12 December that they were content with that suggestion.
In January and February 2017, a surveyor inspected the physical boundary between the properties, and reviewed the historical maps and plans in the title deeds. He concluded that:
- The exact legal boundary could not be accurately reproduced on the ground today because there had been so many changes to the physical features that define it, and there was nothing in the deeds that described it in detail.
- It would be ridiculous to suggest that either neighbour should demolish parts of permanent buildings or structures that have been in place for a long time.
- As it was not possible to determine the exact legal boundary, the best solution was to create a new Determined Boundary, essentially following the current line on the ground.
A sensible, practical, and cost-effective solution.
But Mr & Mrs Crea were not happy. They alleged the surveyor was biased and asserted they had not “signed up” to a binding boundary agreement. It isn’t clear what happened for the next seven and a half years, but it wasn’t until August 2024 that a County Court judge found that the Creas and the Camps had entered into a binding agreement that they would accept the boundary as determined by their jointly instructed surveyor.
Mr & Mrs Crea still weren’t happy, so they appealed to the High Court.
Judgment
The High Court judge agreed with the County Court, so the Creas’ appeal was dismissed. The judge set out that, at law, there are two kinds of boundary agreements. (1) In one, the parties agree to move a boundary, by one or both making concessions to the other. That type of boundary agreement constitutes a contract to transfer land, and so is required to be contained in a written contract signed by the parties. (2) But the second kind of boundary agreement simply identifies, in words, the boundary on the ground.
The judge held that the Creas and the Camps had entered into the second type of boundary agreement. They had agreed that they would jointly instruct the surveyor to identify the boundary, and that they would be bound by the surveyor’s conclusion. The agreement was essentially an agreement to submit their dispute to expert determination. Because it was the second type of boundary agreement, it was not an agreement to transfer land, and so did not require a formal signed contract: the exchange of letters in December 2016 was sufficient.
Takeaway points
- This litigation will have cost the Camps and the Creas considerable expense, and stress. But it creates a useful precedent for others engaged in boundary disputes. When jointly instructing a boundary surveyor, be clear, in writing, that both parties agree to be bound by the surveyor’s decision. Make sure both parties know that the decision will be binding, and then, hopefully, that will be the end of it.
- It is also a reminder to conveyancers when dividing land to deal with the boundaries: where are they, what are they, who is responsible for them.
