Most homeowners assume the red line on their title plan shows exactly where their boundary runs. It does not. B P Collins’ property disputes teams advises that Cunningham v Holehouse [2026] is a sharp reminder of that and of the risks of trying to pin down an exact line through a determined boundary application. The applicants asked the Tribunal to fix their boundary 15 feet from a particular point; the Tribunal found the boundary lay along an old fence line instead, cancelled their application, and indicated they should pay their neighbours’ costs.
The general boundaries rule
When land is registered, the title plan shows only the general position of the boundaries, not their exact line. This is known as the general boundaries rule. The red edging on a title plan is a starting point indicating roughly where a boundary lies; it does not fix the precise legal line. For most owners this never matters. Only where a dispute about the exact position of the boundary arises is where greater certainty is then required.
What happened
The case concerned the southern and western boundaries of a strip of land at the rear of a property near Colne, Lancashire. Mr and Mrs Cunningham applied to HM Land Registry to determine the boundary line (under rule 118 of the Land Registration Rules 2003), based on a plan prepared by their surveyor. Their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Holehouse, who owned the strip, instructed their own expert, who placed the boundary differently, and objected. The dispute was referred to the First-tier Tribunal.
To decide where the boundary lay, the Tribunal worked from established principles: the starting point is the deed that created the boundary by dividing the land into two parcels, construed objectively and in its context, including the physical features on the ground at the date of the deed. The guiding question is, “what would the reasonable layman think he was in fact buying?”.
The applicants said the boundary had been created by a 1987 conveyance, as rectified by a deed of rectification in 2000. The original 1987 plan had been wrong (it failed to reflect additional land sold earlier) which is why the deed was needed, so the plan attached to the deed was treated as the operative plan. That plan marked three points, A, B and C, with the words “Distance B – C – 15 feet”. The applicants argued that this fixed the strip as exactly 15 feet wide, measured from an old fence line, and asked the Tribunal to determine the boundary on that basis.
Why the measurement did not settle it
A precise figure on a plan might be thought to put the matter beyond doubt. It did not. The conveyance described the land as shown on the plan “for the purpose of identification only”. The Tribunal held that this wording signalled the plan was not intended to be exact (a conclusion reinforced by the quality of the plan itself, which was a very basic sketch with a single measurement and no fixed point from which the 15 feet could be measured). The judge found the measurement was indicative only and was not satisfied that the conveyance should be read as conveying a strip exactly 15 feet wide.
Because the applicants’ entire case depended on 15 feet being an exact measurement, that finding alone was enough to defeat the application: without it, they could not show with the necessary precision where the boundary ran.
Where the boundary actually lay
The Tribunal did not stop there. It went on to construe the conveyance against the physical features on the ground at the relevant date – 10 September 1987, the date of the conveyance. The judge corrected the parties’ experts on this point: they had framed their question around the date of the 2000 deed, but the land was conveyed in 1987, and that is the date through which the conveyance must be read.
Two features mattered. First, a shed and carport stood on the strip; the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that they were present in 1987, and that a reasonable person would not read the boundary as running through the middle of the shed. Second, and decisively, an old fence had been erected along the strip shortly after the conveyance, in compliance with a fencing covenant in the conveyance itself, and remained in place from at least 1989 until 2002. The Tribunal held that the boundary followed the line of that fence, either because that was the parties’ original intention, or because they must later be taken to have agreed that the fence marked the boundary.
No determination on the applicants’ terms, and a costs order
A determined boundary application asks the Tribunal to confirm a specific line. The Tribunal can confirm that line or reject it; it does not redraw the application to fit its own conclusions. Because the line the applicants applied for (15 feet from the fence line) was not where the Tribunal found the boundary to be (along the old fence), the Tribunal directed HM Land Registry to cancel the application. The title plan remained subject to the general boundaries rule only (the very position the applicants had started from) and the parties were encouraged to resolve the practical matters by agreement.
The applicants then faced the costs consequences. In most tribunal proceedings, each side bears its own costs, but land registration cases are different: under the Tribunal’s rules the unsuccessful party (the Cunninghams) has to pay the costs of the successful party (the Holehouses).
What this means in practice
The decision carries several practical lessons for any owner thinking about fixing a boundary:
- The title plan is not the boundary: The red line shows the general position only. If you need certainty about the exact line (for a sale, a development, an extension, or a dispute) the title plan alone will not give it to you.
- “For identification purposes only” matters: A plan, or a measurement on it, marked “for identification purposes only” is unlikely to be treated as fixing the exact boundary, however precise it looks. A single dimension on a rough sketch will rarely override the features that were on the ground at the time.
- Physical features and fencing covenants carry real weight: A fence erected in compliance with a conveyance, and left in place for years, is powerful evidence of where the parties intended the boundary to be. What happened on the ground often matters more than a figure on a plan.
- A determined boundary application stands or falls on the line you apply for: The Tribunal will not adjust your application to match its own view of the boundary. If the line you ask for is wrong, the application is cancelled outright, even where the Tribunal positively finds the boundary lies nearby. Getting the applied-for line right, on the evidence, is everything.
- Costs follow the event in these cases: Unlike most tribunal proceedings, the loser of a land registration case usually pays the winner’s costs. An ill-prepared or over-optimistic application is not just unlikely to succeed; it can be expensive.
- Consider agreement first: A negotiated boundary agreement is often quicker, cheaper, and less risky than a contested determined boundary application. The Tribunal itself encouraged the parties to deal with matters neighbourly and by agreement. Litigation should be a considered last resort, entered into only after the evidence has been properly assessed.
Get in touch
Our property disputes team advise homeowners, developers and landowners on all aspects of boundary disputes. If you have a boundary issue, we can help you understand your position and take the right steps to resolve it. For more information, get in touch with Elliott Brookes or email enquiries@bpcollins.co.uk or call 01753 889995. The team’s ethos is simple: solve the problem.
The team’s ethos is simple: solve the problem.
