The client is the registered proprietor of a freehold property in Chelmsford. In August 2021, shortly after purchasing the property, he began renovation works including the demolition of an outhouse. He was informed by the adjoining neighbours, through their solicitor, that part of the outhouse encroached onto their land and that a Deed of Gift dated 9 March 1953 purported to grant them a right of way over part of the client’s land. The client disputes the extent of the boundary and claims that the neighbours have interfered with the boundary line, including the removal of fence panels. He has photographic evidence of this and alleges that the neighbours called the Police in August 2023 to prevent him from continuing work. The client also experienced disagreement with his former solicitor, who had agreed to a joint instruction of an independent boundary surveyor. The client did not consent to this and subsequently dis-instructed the solicitor.
The central issue is the determination of the boundary line between the two properties. The client wishes to pursue a trespass claim and seek reinstatement of the boundary fence and damages. Counsel advised that the court would first need to establish ownership of the disputed land before considering trespass. The title plan provides only a general indication of boundaries, and further evidence would be required. Counsel explained that litigation in boundary disputes is often expensive and protracted, and courts expect parties to attempt settlement before issuing proceedings.
Counsel advised that the client could pursue a trespass claim in the County Court and seek an injunction and damages. Alternatively, he could apply to HM Land Registry to determine the boundary, which would likely be opposed and referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, counsel recommended a practical and cost-effective approach: engaging the neighbours’ solicitor to arrange independent mediation or expert determination of the boundary. This would expedite resolution and potentially secure a contribution to reinstatement costs. Counsel advised against insisting on reinstatement at this stage, as it may lead to unnecessary expense and delay. The client agreed with this approach and expressed gratitude for the advice.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy