header-logo header-logo

04 July 2025 / Edward Blakeney , Ashpen Rajah
Issue: 8123 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Ignorance is not bliss

224741
When ‘I didn’t know’ doesn’t cut it: Edward Blakeney & Ashpen Rajah examine boundary agreements which bind successors in title
  • A boundary agreement will bind successors in title irrespective of their (the successors’) knowledge.
  • That is the case for binding agreements that are express and those that are inferred.
  • This result flows from the nature of boundary agreements, which delineate the property transferred for all purposes.

In Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P & CR 909, Mr Justice Megarry observed that a boundary agreement is ‘an act of peace, quieting strife and averting litigation and so is to be favoured in the law’. The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in White v Alder [2025] EWCA Civ 392 upholds the utility of these agreements by confirming that a boundary demarcation agreement is binding on successors in title, whether or not they had knowledge of it when purchasing.

The facts in White v Alder

The parties were neighbours. Mr White was the owner of ‘Willow Cottage’ and Professor

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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll