Boundary Dispute Case Law Nata Lee v Abid
Boundary Dispute Case Law Nata Lee v Abid (2014) is a significant decision by the Court of Appeal dealing with complex issues of boundary disputes, adverse possession, and trespass, particularly in the context of redevelopment in urban settings.
The judgment serves as an important reference point in understanding how courts handle informal boundary agreements and the evidentiary threshold for proving adverse possession.
The dispute arose from the redevelopment of a warehouse site in Clarence Road, London, where the appellant, Nata Lee Ltd, demolished and redeveloped a property at 99-103 Clarence Road.
The respondents, Mr and Mrs Abid, owned the neighbouring property at 105-107 Clarence Road and operated a printing business there. Central to the litigation was a contested three-metre strip of land between the properties.
Background - Boundary Dispute Case Law Nata Lee v Abid
Nata Lee Ltd acquired No. 99 in 2005. The redevelopment of the warehouse involved constructing new offices and apartments on nearly the same footprint as the original building. Adjacent to this site, the Abids had owned and run a printing business from No. 105 since 1995.
A gated yard lay between the two properties. According to the 1963 Transfer Plan, this yard was split: the front (eastern) section formed part of No. 99, while the rear (western) section belonged to No. 105. The transfer also granted No. 105 a right of way over the eastern portion.
However, Mr and Mrs Abid claimed ownership of a three-metre-wide slice of the yard—the “disputed land”—on the basis of either:
- an oral agreement supported by part performance,
- adverse possession, or
- estoppel (though this was not pursued at appeal).
The Abids alleged that a boundary agreement had effectively moved the dividing line to the east, enabling them to use the disputed strip for parking and access.
District Judge Langley found in favour of the Abids at trial, declaring that the disputed land formed part of their title and that Nata Lee had committed multiple trespasses, including interference with the right of way and encroachment by building structures.
Nata Lee appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Analysis - Boundary Dispute Case Law Nata Lee v Abid
1. Boundary Agreement Claim
The Court swiftly dismissed the claim based on part performance, clarifying that section 53(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires a disposition of land to be made by deed, and that part performance could not validate an immediate oral transfer.
The Court then considered whether the informal agreement amounted to a boundary agreement under the doctrine in Neilson v Poole and Joyce v Rigolli. These cases support a distinction between:
- Agreements to demarcate an uncertain boundary (which are not dispositions of land), and
- Agreements to transfer land (which must comply with statutory formalities).
Lord Justice Briggs held that the alleged agreement fell into the second category. The 1963 Plan clearly defined the boundary, leaving no ambiguity to resolve. The agreement did not clarify uncertainty but instead sought to transfer a significant portion of land. The court rejected the notion that the agreement merely demarcated the boundary and found no valid consideration to support a legal contract.
As a result, the boundary agreement argument failed.
2. Adverse Possession
The trial judge found that the Abids and their predecessors had acquired the disputed land through adverse possession prior to the Land Registration Act 2002.
However, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It concluded that the acts relied upon—parking, limited maintenance, and the existence of a painted line—did not exclude the paper title owners (Nata Lee and their predecessors) from using the land.
Lord Justice Briggs emphasised that occasional or partial use does not amount to factual possession. Even if Mr Abid regularly parked there, it did not amount to the exclusive control required to prove adverse possession. The painting of the line was attributed to a former owner of No. 99, not No. 105. Maintenance efforts were minimal and insufficient to demonstrate exclusive control.
The Court therefore reversed the trial judge’s finding on adverse possession and ruled that the disputed land remained part of No. 99.
3. Trespass Claims
The trial judge had found that Nata Lee committed multiple acts of trespass. The Court of Appeal reviewed each.
(i) Trespass by Building and Foundations
The judge had accepted the evidence of the Abids’ expert (Mr Calvert), who measured an encroachment of the new building by approximately 0.24 metres. However, the Court found that the exclusion of key measurements taken by Nata Lee’s party wall surveyor (Mr Shattock) was procedurally unfair. Mr Shattock’s evidence could have shown the encroachment was minimal—possibly as little as 1 cm.
The Court held that this procedural error undermined the trespass finding and ordered a retrial on the extent of the encroachment into No. 105's land.
(ii) Trespass by Drainage Works
Both parties’ surveyors agreed an Addendum Party Wall Award that rerouted the drains under No. 105’s land.The judge still found this constituted trespass. The Court of Appeal strongly disagreed, holding that the Abids had consented via their surveyor to the work, and the claim should never have succeeded. The Court dismissed this aspect of the trespass claim.
(iii) Trespass via New Door Access
The Court dismissed the trespass claim on appeal after finding that the disputed land belonged to No. 99. Therefore, the doorway did not encroach on the Abids’ land.
4. Right of Way Interference
(i) Yard Narrowing
The width of the yard was reduced from 15 feet to approximately 14 feet. The judge accepted that this interfered with vehicular deliveries. However, the Court of Appeal found this unconvincing, especially given that lorries remained within the permitted width under UK law. There was insufficient evidence that this reduction significantly impaired access.
This part of the claim was dismissed.
(ii) Gatepost Narrowing
The Court reached a different conclusion on the reduction in width between the gateposts, which narrowed by approximately 1 metre. Witness testimony and a driver’s letter substantiated that the restricted access significantly affected delivery vehicles, and the Court upheld the judge’s findings.
This interference was actionable.
(iii) Temporary Obstructions
The judge had accepted a schedule of obstructions—some of which were not pleaded in the claim. These included scaffolding and materials as well as vehicles. The Court noted that temporary obstructions are only trespass if access is denied and not promptly restored. There was insufficient detail in the evidence to assess each obstruction. Moreover, the judge went beyond the pleaded case.
This aspect of the claim required a retrial to determine its merits.
Key Takeaways - Boundary Dispute Case Law Nata Lee v Abid
Oral boundary agreements that seek to transfer land must comply with statutory formalities under the Law of Property Act 1925 and LPA (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Mere informal arrangements are insufficient to vary registered title boundaries.
Adverse possession requires clear exclusion of the paper title owner. Minimal use, such as occasional parking or superficial maintenance, does not suffice.
Procedural fairness in admitting evidence is critical. Exclusion of reliable contemporaneous measurements may warrant a retrial if the decision affects the outcome.
Party Wall Awards, when consented to by both surveyors, can legitimise actions that would otherwise be trespass—like laying drainage beneath a neighbour’s land.
Interference with rights of way must be substantial to be actionable. A narrowing of 1 foot may not constitute interference, but narrowing a gateway by 1 metre could.
Courts will not uphold declarations that go beyond the pleadings, especially where procedural safeguards are missing, such as in cases involving unrepresented litigants.
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