header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 30 May 2025

Chats on the boundary; owning up to AI in court; joint divorce popular: official; who needs a seal?!

THE BOTHER OF BOUNDARIES

You may not be disposed to raise as a conveyancing preliminary enquiry ‘is the property haunted?’, although I would advocate it. Pedants might more usefully now throw in as a supplement to standard questions: ‘Has the seller or any predecessor in title been a party to an oral or written boundary demarcation agreement as referred to in White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392 and, if so, provide full details?’ This is an agreement the purpose of which is to define a previously unclear or uncertain boundary, even if it includes the conscious or unconscious transfer of a trivial amount of land. It is to be distinguished from an agreement whose purpose is to move a boundary so as to transfer land from one neighbour to another and which would be subject to the necessary formalities for land transfer.

The Court of Appeal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll