NLJ this week: Ignorance is not bliss—boundary agreements bind successors

The case involved a dispute over a boundary wall between two properties, where the original owners had agreed its location. The court upheld that such agreements, whether express or inferred, define the legal extent of property and are binding for all purposes.

This decision resolves previous uncertainty and affirms that no ‘priorities’ analysis or overriding interest is needed. The authors note that this clarity should encourage continued use of boundary agreements as a pragmatic tool to resolve disputes and avoid litigation—‘quieting strife’ in the words of Mr Justice Megarry.