Boundary Dispute Case Law Clapham & Wright v Narga
Boundary Dispute Case Law Clapham & Wright v Narga (2024), the Court of Appeal revisited fundamental issues around adverse possession, the general boundaries rule, and the interpretation of Land Registration Acts.
This case marks a significant clarification on how historic possession, land registration, and boundary demarcation interact under UK property law. It is a pivotal decision for property owners, conveyancers, and land registration professionals alike.
This blog post provides an in-depth summary of the facts, legal issues, and the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, optimised for those seeking case law insights on boundary disputes and the law of adverse possession.
Factual Background
The dispute arose in Thrussington, Leicestershire, between the owners of 24, 25, and 26 The Green (the appellants, Clapham and Wright) and the respondent, Ms Narga, the current owner of Brook Barn, which lies just north of these properties.
Between these homes and Brook Barn runs a brook with steep banks. The land in contention—referred to as the Disputed Land—lies between the brook’s northern edge and a fence at the top of the northern slope.
Historically, the Claphams and Wrights used this area as part of their gardens and claimed ownership through adverse possession.
Ownership History
- 25 & 26 The Green were initially owned by Mr Crowden, who sold Number 26 in 1982 and Number 25 in 1988. The Wrights acquired both properties and merged them into a single residence after their tenants left.
- 24 The Green was sold to the Claphams in 1996, who were registered proprietors from 18 November 1996.
- Brook Barn had various owners and was first registered on 19 March 2003. Ms Narga acquired the property in May 2020.
Crucially, both the Claphams and Wrights claimed long-term and visible possession of the Disputed Land prior to Brook Barn's registration.
Trial Findings and First Appeal
At first instance, HHJ Hedley found that:
1. The title plans inaccurately represented the brook and the surrounding boundaries.
2. The Claphams and Wrights had acquired adverse possession of the Disputed Land up to the Fence prior to 2003.
3. However, due to the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002), they lost their title upon Ms Narga’s purchase in 2020. The judge reasoned that their possession, while ongoing, was not "obvious on a reasonably careful inspection," and thus didn’t qualify as an overriding interest under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the LRA 2002.
On appeal to the High Court, Leech J upheld this reasoning, specifically endorsing the application of section 75 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925), even where adverse possession predated first registration.
Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Newey, allowed the appeal. Lord Justice Newey held that the Disputed Land continued to belong to the Claphams and Wrights, and Ms Narga had not acquired ownership of it when she purchased Brook Barn. The Court focused on three major legal themes:
1. General Boundaries Rule
The Court reinforced that title plans do not determine exact boundaries, especially when no fixed boundary has been registered under rule 118 of the Land Registration Rules 2003.
Under section 60 LRA 2002, boundaries shown in filed plans are general unless expressly determined. Since Brook Barn’s boundary had not been fixed, its plan could not be taken as conclusive. The Fence—not the brook—remained the real boundary.
The judges cited Drake v Fripp and Lee v Barrey, clarifying that boundary disputes can cover strips of several metres so long as they concern adjacent land and not ownership of wholly separate parcels.
2. Adverse Possession and the Inapplicability of Section 75 LRA 1925
The Court found that section 75 LRA 1925 did not apply because:
- It was intended to operate where the limitation period expired after registration, not before.
- It could only apply where the registered estate included the land in question. Since the Claphams and Wrights had already acquired ownership via adverse possession before Brook Barn was registered in 2003, the land did not form part of the registered title.
This view echoed judicial dicta in Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co Ltd [1963] AC 510, where Lord Radcliffe noted that section 75 applies only where extinguishment postdates registration.
Thus, Brook Barn’s first registration in 2003 could not affect land already owned by someone else through adverse possession.
3. Overriding Interests and Section 29 LRA 2002
Under section 29(1) LRA 2002, Ms Narga’s title would prevail over any unprotected interests—unless they qualified as overriding interests under Schedule 3.
But the Court held this test did not apply here, because:
- The Disputed Land was never part of the registered estate.
- The title plan was general and didn’t confer rights over the land.
- The Claphams and Wrights owned the land outright by the time of Brook Barn’s first registration.
There was no need to analyse whether their occupation was "obvious" under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, as section 29 was never triggered.
Clarification on Boundary vs Property Dispute
A key point of disagreement below was whether this was a boundary dispute (governed by the general boundaries rule) or a property dispute (based on adverse possession claims).
The Court of Appeal held this was a boundary dispute, citing:
- The narrow strip in question (approx. 2–5 metres in depth).
- The absence of buildings or high-value use on the Disputed Land.
- The continuous and peaceful use of the land as gardens.
This conclusion supported the use of the general boundaries rule to determine the outcome.
Key Takeaways - Boundary Dispute Case Law Clapham & Wright v Narga
1. Title Plans Are Not Definitive
Even if a title plan shows land within a red boundary line, this does not guarantee ownership if adverse possession has shifted the boundary.
2. Section 75 LRA 1925 Does Not Revive Extinguished Titles
If adverse possession extinguished a title before registration, section 75 does not apply. The land belongs to the adverse possessor, not the first registered owner.
3. Actual Occupation Tests May Be Irrelevant
Where registered title does not include the land, the law excludes such disputes from section 29 and Schedule 3 of the LRA 2002.
4. Adverse Possession Can Shift Boundaries
As seen here, long-standing possession by neighbours can re-draw practical boundaries and override what title documents suggest.
5. Boundary Disputes Can Be Avoided
The final remarks by Lord Justice Peter Jackson stress the human cost. Ms Narga could have saved over £300,000 in legal costs if she had consulted her neighbours before purchasing the property.
Conclusion - Boundary Dispute Case Law Clapham & Wright v Narga
The Clapham & Wright v Narga decision affirms the legal weight of adverse possession and the general boundaries principle in land registration. It reminds us that paper titles are not infallible and that the physical reality on the ground often prevails.
This judgment should prompt buyers and solicitors to exercise greater caution when interpreting title plans, especially in rural or irregularly shaped plots where boundary demarcations may have shifted over decades.
Need Advice on a Boundary Dispute?
At Anstey Horne, our expert team of chartered surveyors specialises in resolving complex boundary disputes across England and Wales. Whether you’re a property owner, developer, or legal advisor, we provide:
- Independent boundary determinations
- Historic title and deed analysis
- Expert witness reports for litigation
- Negotiation and mediation support
We combine technical expertise with in-depth legal understanding to help you achieve clarity and avoid costly conflict.
For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135.
If you would rather we called you instead, please fill in our Contact form and we will be in touch.
For more information on all aspects of Boundary Disputes see the collection of articles in our blog.
For advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135.
If you are planning work that is covered by the Act, or if you have received notice of work from a neighbour and want advice on how best to protect your property please contact:
Geoffrey Adams
BEng (Hons) PgDip FRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London
Rickie Bloom
BSc (Hons) MRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London