In the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Clapham v Narga, the 'general boundary rule' was invoked to argue that a stream that appeared to be clearly within a redline boundary was in fact outside it.
The long-running dispute between neighbours in the village of Thrussington, Leicestershire, dates back to September 2020, and has cost in total in excess of £300,000. It appears it is now finally settled in favour of the Claphams and neighbouring Wrights, who had claimed adverse possession of land to the north of a stream bordering their properties.
Brook Barn, the other side of the stream, was purchased by Dee Narga in 2020, with the intention that her ducks, Larry and Wanda, would enjoy the use of the stream at the bottom of her garden.
The case has brought into focus the 'general boundaries rule', and serves as a useful history lesson on the reasons for this somewhat misunderstood rule and the importance of its wide applicability.
The 'general boundaries rule' was expressed originally in rule 278 of the Land Registration Rules 1925 (the 1925 Rules) and is now to be found, expressed in slightly different terms, at section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (the LRA 2002). As originally drafted, it made clear that: "Except in cases in which it is noted in the Property Register that the boundaries have been fixed, the plan or General Map shall be deemed to indicate the general boundaries only".
Whilst most practitioners are aware that the Land Registry Title Plan is not to be relied on as exact, it is common to assume that a natural feature, such as a stream or ditch is likely to sit whichever side of the red line is indicated. It is for this reason that Ms Narga assumed that the stream at the bottom of her garden did, in fact, belong to her, as it sat squarely within the redline boundary of her property.
Rule 278 however is explicit that this is not the case: "This rule shall apply notwithstanding that a part or the whole of a ditch, wall, fence, road, stream, or other boundary is expressly included in or excluded from the title or that it forms the whole of the land comprised in the title.”
The reason for this lies in the history of the various land registration acts. The Land Transfer Act 1875 explicitly provided that plans, whilst they should be "calculated to secure accuracy" should not be taken to be conclusive as to the boundary or extent of the registered land. This was done to avoid registration being held up by enquiries into the exact location of every boundary, needed if the boundary were to be seen as definitive. The general rule was later incorporated into the 1925 Rules, and subsequently into the LRA 2002.
Section 60 of the LRA 2002 is less explicit than Rule 278, only providing that unless it has been determined, a boundary is a general boundary, and "a general boundary does not determine the exact line of the boundary". The more explicit provisions in the 1925 Rules however, are still a good guide as to the meaning of this section.
It was accepted in this case that the Claphams and the Wrights had acquired title to the land to the north of the stream by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered in 2003. However, Ms Narga argued (successfully) that because their title had not been registered, she had taken Brook Barn free of their interest in 2020, occupation not being obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land.
While the argument in the lower courts involved some debate on the effect of various sections of the LRA 2002 and the Law of Property 1925, in fact these became irrelevant once the court accepted the argument that this was in fact a boundary dispute rather than a question of the effect of first registration and subsequent transfer on rights to land acquired by adverse possession.
The Claphams and Wrights argued successfully that as they had acquired title to the land to the north of the stream by adverse possession before Brook Barn was registered, the boundary drawn on the title plan did not reflect the underlying reality. Under the general boundaries rule, the boundary of Brook Barn now fell to be determined by reference to the underlying documents, transfers and legal situation – including the fact of adverse possession.
In other words, just because the redline boundary was to the south of the stream, it did not mean that the actual boundary lay there: in fact, by reason of the adverse possession, it lay to the north, and Brook Barn's land did not include the stream.
The case is a useful reminder that Land Registry plans cannot be relied on, and careful inspection and enquiries with the owners and neighbours may be needed by a buyer if a particular boundary feature is of crucial importance to them. Ms Narga's ducks will sadly now have to paddle in an artificial pond.
