Boundary Dispute Case Law Joyce v Rigolli
Boundary Dispute Case Law Joyce v Rigolli (2004), this Court of Appeal decision has become a significant authority in English boundary dispute case law.
The case addresses essential issues on how to determine boundaries when land registry plans lack clarity, establishes the legal standing of oral boundary agreements, and explains how the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 operates.
The dispute arose between neighbours, Mrs Joyce and Mr Rigolli, over the boundary between their respective properties at 6 and 7 Chanton Drive, Cheam, Surrey.
After a contested County Court trial, the matter reached the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Mrs Joyce’s appeal and clarified important principles regarding boundary demarcation.
Background - Boundary Dispute Case Law Joyce v Rigolli
The dispute centred on a parcel of land forming 7 Chanton Drive, which originally came from the rear garden of 6 Chanton Drive, with an additional section added from a third-party neighbour.
Although no physical marker defined the original boundary at the time of sale, a transfer dated 27 April 2000 set the boundary as a line extending 8.382 metres (27 feet 6 inches) at right angles from a specific corner of the house at 6 Chanton Drive.
The plan annexed to the transfer, however, lacked precision. It did not define the angle of the line from the house, and this ambiguity later became the root of the conflict.
Mr Rigolli, the eventual owner of No. 7, constructed a bungalow and close-boarded fence, which the Joyces believed trespassed into their land.
County Court Decision
Judge Hull QC heard expert evidence from both sides. Mrs Joyce’s surveyor, Mr Francis, attempted to define the boundary using extrapolated angles and extended lines from adjacent properties. However, Judge Hull rejected this analysis as “logically and legally illegitimate”, criticising it for relying on speculative assumptions and ignoring the Land Registry’s general boundary principles under Rules 278 and 279.
The judge also rejected the alternative expert evidence from Mr Rigolli’s side, finding that neither party had succeeded in defining the boundary solely from title documents.
Instead, the court turned to the events of November 2000, when Mr Rigolli and Mr Joyce (acting for Mrs Joyce) met on site to agree the boundary. Mr Rigolli stated that the two men agreed to mark out a kinked boundary in line with a cherry tree, which both wanted to keep on the Joyce property.
Mr French, a contractor present at the meeting, supported this informal agreement with his testimony, and the judge found him to be a credible witness. The judge concluded that this oral boundary agreement, once acted upon, became binding and validated the placement of the fence and garage.
Appeal Grounds
Mrs Joyce challenged the County Court’s findings on three main grounds:
1. Boundary Identification from Title Plans – She argued that the judge erred in finding the title plans insufficient to determine the boundary and should have preferred Mr Francis’s expert analysis.
2. Invalidity of Oral Boundary Agreement – She claimed the agreement was void as it had not been made in writing, thus breaching section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
3. Inconsistency of Boundary Location – She submitted that the judge’s boundary determination conflicted with the evidence given about the agreement.
Court of Appeal Findings
1. Title Plans Did Not Define Boundary
Lady Justice Arden held that the judge was correct in finding the title plans inadequate. The plan specified only a vague arc of 8.382 metres with no fixed angle, which prevented anyone from establishing a definitive boundary based on the documentation alone.
The court noted that this case illustrated the pitfalls of sloppy conveyancing, echoing the warnings from Scarfe v Adams [1981] 1 All ER 843, which emphasised the need for clarity and precision in boundary descriptions when subdividing land.
2. Oral Agreement Was Legally Binding
Mrs Joyce’s primary argument failed. The court endorsed the approach taken in Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P&CR 909, where Megarry J distinguished between agreements to convey land and those that merely demarcate a boundary. The presumption is that informal agreements fall into the latter category and do not constitute a transfer of land requiring written form under section 2(1) of the 1989 Act.
Even though Mr Rigolli acknowledged he had relinquished a small triangle of land near the cherry tree and arguably received some land in return, the court found the exchange so trivial and mutual that the agreement remained a valid informal boundary demarcation, not a disposition of an interest in land.
The Court also considered the role of proprietary estoppel. The Court found that the criteria were met: both parties had reached an agreement, acted upon it, and it would be inequitable to deny its validity. This provided an alternative route to enforce the agreement even if section 2(1) had applied—thanks to section 2(5) of the Act, which preserves equitable doctrines like estoppel.
3. Boundary Location Not Inconsistent with Evidence
The appellant contended that the boundary found by the court was inconsistent with Mr French’s evidence, which described a straight line. However, the judge, who had visited the site and viewed the cherry tree’s position relative to the fence, found no material inconsistency. The fence’s slight kink to accommodate the cherry tree was consistent with the agreed boundary on the ground, and the Court of Appeal deferred to the trial judge’s superior position in evaluating such factual detail.
Judgment and Costs
The Court dismissed the appeal. It ordered Mrs Joyce to pay £1,500 in costs to Mr Rigolli. The judgment reaffirmed that oral demarcation agreements hold legal standing and reinforced the presumption that such agreements do not constitute land transfers unless the parties clearly and deliberately intended to convey land.
Key Takeaways: Boundary Dispute Case Law Joyce v Rigolli
Title plans rarely fix exact boundaries. Unless formally determined, Land Registry plans show only general boundaries under Rules 278 and 279.
Boundary disputes can stem from unclear drafting. This case serves as a cautionary tale about imprecise conveyancing when subdividing land.
Oral agreements to fix boundaries are enforceable if they merely demarcate an unclear line and do not intentionally convey land.
The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 does not apply to informal agreements unless the agreement intends to transfer land.
Even where small amounts of land are exchanged, the courts may treat the agreement as a trivial demarcation, not requiring formal documentation.
Proprietary estoppel can support the enforceability of informal agreements where parties have relied on them to their detriment.
Courts give weight to site inspections and witness credibility, especially when evidence about boundary lines is contested.
Joyce v Rigolli affirms the principle in Neilson v Poole and remains a leading authority on the nature and enforceability of informal boundary agreements.
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 boundary advice direct from one of our Surveyors, please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3135 or contact :
Geoffrey Adams
BEng (Hons) PgDip FRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London
Rickie Bloom
BSc (Hons) MRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London