Most people assume that the fence, hedge or wall running around a site marks the legal boundary. A recent High Court decision, Todd v Marsh [2026] EWHC 1701 (Ch), is a useful reminder that this is often not the case, and that getting it wrong can be expensive.
The case will be of particular interest to social housing providers and developers acquiring land from multiple owners, land with a long ownership history, or sites where physical features such as fences, hedges or tree lines do not obviously match the title plan.
What Happened
The dispute concerned a country house called Wyland Wood and two adjoining parcels of land, all of which had originally been owned by the same person.
David Todd and Caroline Hodge bought Wyland Wood from Stephen Baldwin in February 2018. At the time of the sale, Mr Baldwin retained ownership of the two adjoining parcels of land.
A dog and deer-proof fence ran across the land, but it did not follow the boundary between Wyland Wood and Mr Baldwin’s parcels as shown on the title plans or in the historic conveyancing documents. Instead, the fence stood some 6 to 11 metres inside the parcels, meaning that an additional strip of land appeared to form part of Wyland Wood.
In August 2019, the fence was damaged by high winds. Mr Todd and Mr Baldwin exchanged emails about sharing the cost of repairs and, in doing so, both referred to it as the “boundary fence”. They also referred to “your side” and “our side” of the fence.
Richard and Rebecca Marsh, together with their company, Tapstone Limited, bought the neighbouring parcels from Mr Baldwin in 2021. Shortly after completing the purchase, Mr Marsh sought to remove the fence. Mr Todd, who had by then lived with the fence in place for several years, objected and obtained an injunction preventing its removal until the true boundary could be determined by the court.
The Route To The High Court
The case was first heard in the County Court in May 2025. The trial lasted four days and included a site visit by the judge.
The owners of Wyland Wood argued that the fence marked the true boundary between the properties. Mr and Mrs Marsh disagreed, relying on the title plans and a series of conveyances dating back to 1970, all of which showed the boundary following an old tree line rather than the fence.
The owners of Wyland Wood also argued that the 2019 email exchange between Mr Todd and Mr Baldwin amounted to a binding boundary agreement, fixing the boundary along the line of the fence.
The judge rejected both arguments. She held that the legal boundary followed the line shown in the title documents, not the fence, and that the 2019 emails did not give rise to a binding boundary agreement.
The owners of Wyland Wood appealed to the High Court on two grounds. They argued that the judge had misapplied the general boundaries rule under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 when determining the boundary’s location and had also been wrong to reject their claim that a binding boundary agreement had been reached.
The general boundaries rule means that, unless a boundary has been formally determined, Land Registry title plans identify only the general position of a boundary. They do not, by themselves, establish the precise legal boundary line.
What The Court Decided
The court rejected both arguments and upheld the County Court’s decision that the boundary was the line shown on the registered title plans and historic conveyances, not the fence.
On the boundary line issue, the High Court found that the County Court had approached the boundary issue correctly. The transfer of Wyland Wood in 2018 was consistent with a chain of conveyances dating back to 1970, all of which pointed to the same boundary line. Both parties’ surveyors agreed that this line followed an old tree line rather than the fence. In those circumstances, the judge had been entitled to conclude that the title documents provided a clear answer as to the boundary’s location.
On the boundary agreement issue, the High Court agreed that the 2019 emails did not amount to a binding boundary agreement. The emails were concerned with sharing the cost of repairing the fence, not with formally agreeing where the legal boundary lay. The court accepted Mr Baldwin’s evidence that he was dealing with the issue as a neighbour and had not turned his mind to the boundary’s legal position.
The court also noted that the disputed strip was far from insignificant. At around half an acre, it represented approximately 18.5% of Wyland Wood’s total area. Even if the parties had intended to transfer ownership of land on that scale by agreement, the arrangement would have needed to comply with the statutory formalities for land transactions, including being properly recorded in writing. The informal email exchange fell well short of those requirements.
Why This Matters For Housing Providers and Developers
This case is a timely reminder of some basic but easily overlooked points when acquiring or disposing of land, particularly larger sites, rural properties and land carved out of a wider estate:
- Do not assume that fences, hedges or walls mark the legal boundary. Often they do not, particularly where land has been subdivided over time.
- Review the title documentation carefully. Where available, look beyond the current title plan and consider the historic conveyancing history. A consistent chain of conveyances spanning many years, as in this case, can be compelling evidence of where a boundary was intended to lie.
- Consider access arrangements. If a proposed boundary would leave land without any practical or legal access, or cut off access that an owner would be expected to retain, that may be a strong indicator that the proposed boundary is wrong and is a point that should be investigated during due diligence.
- Treat informal references to boundaries with caution. The decision is an important reminder that an informal boundary agreement will only be binding where:
– there is clear evidence of a conscious and mutual meeting of minds directed specifically at identifying and fixing the location of the boundary, rather than simply dealing with a practical issue such as repairing a fence, and
– the land affected is genuinely trivial in the context of the wider property. Where a substantial area of land is involved, any agreement is likely to require compliance with the statutory formalities governing dispositions of land. - Investigate uncertainty early. Where a boundary is unclear, particularly on sites with historic or unusual boundary features, a specialist boundary survey and legal review of title is often money well spent before contracts are exchanged.
For developers assembling sites from multiple parcels, or housing providers acquiring land as part of wider estate reorganisations, the case underlines the importance of carrying out thorough boundary due diligence at an early stage. A site inspection and a review of the current title plan may not be enough. Overlooking a boundary issue can lead to costly disputes, delays to development and, in the worst cases, the discovery after completion that the site acquired is different from that assumed.