Can I Rely On A Land Registry Plan?

In a recent case, the Court of Appeal have reconsidered a boundary dispute and confirmed that when considering the legal boundary of a property, the HM Land Registry’s title plan is irrelevant to establish where the boundary line is located and that this should be found by ‘looking underneath’ the plan.

In this case, the Claphams and others (“the appellants”) owned neighbouring properties in Leicestershire, all of which had gardens to the north, at the bottom of which there was a brook. In 2020, Ms Narga (“the respondent”), purchased the land to the north of the brook, known as Brook Barn.

Upon purchasing the property, Ms Narga believed that the boundary of her property ran to the south of the brook and through the appellants’ gardens. This belief was based upon the Land Registry title plan which she claimed clearly showed the boundary of her property. Ms Narga went on to request fees from the appellants for using parts of her garden, erect fences through the appellants’ gardens and carry out clearing works on both banks of the brook. This was done on the belief that all the land was within her ownership.

At the initial trial, the Judge found that the appellants had all been in adverse possession of the north brook for decades and had therefore, under Section 75 of the Land Registration Act, extinguished the title of that land having been in possession for more than 12 years as required by the Limitation Act 1980. This occupation was prior to Ms Narga’s land being first registered in 2003.

However, upon appeal by Ms Narga, Judge Hedley held that the later transfers of the land had destroyed the appellants’’ title to the property because their occupation of the north bank was not obvious. Judge Hedley therefore dismissed the appellants’ claim for adverse possession.

Upon a further appeal by the appellants, the Court of Appeal provided clarification on the well-established General Boundaries rule and Section 75 of the Land Registration Act.

The general boundaries rule creates a distinction between the legal boundary and the physical boundary. The legal boundary is one which is an exact line of no thickness which is invisible on the ground, but which divides one property from another. This often remains unclear.

The physical boundary is one which is visible and identified by a physical feature on the ground, such as a wall, fence or hedge which actually divides one property from another. The legal boundary often runs somewhere within or alongside the thickness of the physical feature.

It is for this reason that the line shown on a Land Registry title plan does not determine the legal boundary between two properties. Due to the thickness of the red line outlining the title on these plans, they cannot be used as an accurate depiction of where the legal boundary should lay.

In this case, although the north bank appeared to be part of the land purchased by Ms Narga according to the title plan, there is a need to ‘look underneath’ the title plan. In doing so it is established that the appellant’s had long acquired the north bank via adverse possession due to the time they had been in occupation prior to the title to Brook Bank being registered in 2003. Had Ms Narga enquired with the appellants prior to purchasing the property, this would have been established prior to her purchase.

If you are having similar issues with establishing a boundary, rights over land or an ongoing dispute, contact our Commercial Property and Commercial Litigation teams at Wilson Browne, who can help.