Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson
Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson - this Court of Appeal decision is a critical authority in UK boundary dispute case law.
It provides vital insight into how courts interpret boundaries where historic conveyances, physical features, and family agreements interact over time. The judgment clarifies the legal principles governing implied boundary agreements and the court’s role in recognising informal arrangements that deviate from paper title.
Background: Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson
The dispute concerned two properties in North Yorkshire: No. 1 Hartforth Village and Hartforth Hall.
In 1973, Major Guy Cradock gifted No. 1 Hartforth to his wife, Mrs Cradock, by deed of gift. The deed included a plan depicting a triangular parcel of land. However, the boundary was not marked on the ground by a fence or physical feature at the time. The property consists of the buildings and land in the top left of the image to this post.
After Major Cradock’s death in 1975, his estate passed to Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, who later sold Hartforth Hall to the defendants, Mr and Mrs Johnson, in 1986. The claimants, Mr and Mrs Stephenson, purchased No. 1 Hartforth in 1993.
The central issue was whether a fence erected by Mrs Cradock in the 1970s—part of which still stood—constituted the true boundary between the two properties.
The claimants contended that the legal boundary followed a different line as shown in the 1973 deed. The defendants argued that the fence line represented the agreed boundary, based on historical conduct and subsequent agreements.
The Fence and the Conveyance
After moving into No. 1 Hartforth, Mrs Cradock erected a fence along a line not consistent with the boundary shown on the 1973 deed. Notably, the fence had a “dog leg” bend rather than the straight line illustrated in the deed.
In 1986, when Sir Josslyn sold Hartforth Hall to the Johnsons, the conveyance included a plan (Plan No. 1) showing a boundary with ‘T’ marks—indicating the purchasers’ obligation to maintain the boundary. The Fourth Schedule of the conveyance also required the purchasers to erect a post-and-rail fence between specified points, including from point A to point E.
Significantly, part of Mrs Cradock’s original fence still existed at the eastern end—coloured green on plan TB 304(a)—and ran from point B to the roadway. This section of fence was closer to No. 1 Hartforth than the boundary line shown on the 1973 deed.
The Disputed Strip and Events Leading to Litigation
In the 1980s, Mr Gerald Vane—Mrs Cradock’s nephew—took possession of No. 1 Hartforth and later became its legal owner through a deed of gift executed in 1986. In the autumn of 1985, Vane instructed that the western section of the Cradock fence be removed to expand his garden. However, he allowed the eastern section of the fence (B to road) to remain in place.
The Johnsons erected their own fence in 1987 in accordance with their obligations under the 1986 conveyance, running from point A to point E and terminating at the eastern end of Mrs Cradock’s remaining fence. Mr Vane accepted this arrangement and planted a beech hedge on his side of the Johnsons’ fence, reinforcing the agreed boundary visually.
No dispute arose between 1987 and 1993, during which time the Johnsons occupied land to the north of the fence and Mr Vane occupied the garden to the south.
However, after Vane’s death in 1993, his estate administrators sought to sell No. 1 Hartforth. Upon reviewing the boundary, they noticed a discrepancy: the fence erected by the Johnsons (and the remaining section of Mrs Cradock’s fence) encroached on what they believed was land belonging to No. 1 Hartforth. They alleged trespass and initiated proceedings after the Johnsons removed a new fence the Stephensons had erected along the line they considered correct.
County Court Findings
At trial, His Honour Judge Howarth found in favour of the defendants. He accepted that:
- The 1986 conveyance to the Johnsons included a fencing covenant that fixed the boundary by reference to the line shown on Plan No. 1.
- The fencing constructed by the Johnsons (including the dog leg) was approved by Sir Josslyn’s agent, Mr Scrope, as compliant with the conveyance.
- Mr Vane had participated in boundary discussions, agreed to a wicket gate instead of a five-bar gate, and did not object to the Johnsons' fence.
- The conduct of both parties amounted to an implied boundary agreement, reinforced by their mutual inaction and subsequent planting and fencing.
The judge concluded that the green fence (B to road) and the dog-leg section formed a continuous boundary agreed by all relevant parties.
Court of Appeal Decision
The claimants appealed. They accepted the red line from point A to B but disputed the green fence section, arguing the boundary should follow the dotted line shown in the original 1973 deed.
Legal Focus: Implied Boundary Agreements
The central issue on appeal was whether the judge had properly inferred a boundary agreement between Mr Vane and the Johnsons. Mr MacDonald QC, acting for the claimants, argued that:
- Boundaries should follow the conveyance and plan unless displaced by adverse possession.
- Mrs Cradock’s fence was erected informally to keep out rabbits—not as a boundary marker.
- There was no evidence of an offer and acceptance between Vane and the Johnsons to fix the boundary.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments.
Bennett J: Boundary Agreements as ‘Acts of Peace’
Mr Justice Bennett, delivering the lead judgment, upheld the trial judge’s findings. He emphasised the importance of recognising boundary agreements, even if informal, as “acts of peace” which prevent litigation.
He noted that:
- The conveyance imposed obligations to fence and maintain boundaries.
- Mr Vane accepted the fence’s position by conduct, by agreeing to the wicket gate and not challenging the fence.
- The fence line made practical sense and removed ambiguity.
The court found that the Johnsons’ fence and the Cradock fence together formed a continuous, accepted boundary. Mr Vane had never attempted to access land north of the Cradock fence, suggesting he did not consider it his.
Clarke LJ and Pill LJ Concur
Lord Justice Clarke agreed that it was illogical to separate the dog-leg fence from the green fence section. Both formed part of the same practical boundary. He noted that Sir Josslyn and his agents treated the green fence as the boundary in the 1986 conveyance, and Vane had no reason to think otherwise.
Lord Justice Pill also concurred, observing that family involvement and informal arrangements, while not legally binding on paper, gave rise to valid boundary agreements when supported by conduct and intention.
Final Judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It confirmed the trial judge’s finding that the green fence, alongside the Johnsons’ dog-leg fence, constituted the true boundary—regardless of what earlier deeds or plans indicated.
Key Takeaways - Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson
1. Implied Boundary Agreements Are Valid: Courts can and do recognise implied agreements based on the conduct of parties, even where such agreements deviate from conveyance plans.
2. Fencing and Inaction Support Agreement: Long-standing fences, particularly when maintained and not challenged, can serve as strong evidence of a boundary agreement.
3. Paper Title Isn’t Always Conclusive: While legal title is significant, it can be overridden by an informal agreement where parties have clearly acted in a way that establishes and accepts a different boundary.
4. Practical Conduct Matters: Planting hedges, erecting fences, and accepting substitute gate arrangements can all indicate agreement on boundary positioning.
5. Family Arrangements Can Have Legal Consequences: Informal or familial arrangements about land boundaries may later become binding if the conduct of parties evidences mutual acceptance.
6. Boundary Agreements Need Not Be Formal: Courts favour such agreements as peaceful resolutions to disputes, especially where adverse possession is not claimed.
7. Plans ‘For Identification Only’ Carry Limited Weight: Where conveyance plans are stated to be for identification purposes only, courts will consider additional evidence to determine boundaries.
Conclusion - Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson
The decision in Stephenson v Johnson reinforces the principle that boundary disputes are not always resolved by strict adherence to legal documents alone. Instead, courts may give significant weight to the actual conduct and intentions of the parties over time.
This case illustrates how fences, hedges, and longstanding inaction can evidence a binding agreement—even where such arrangements diverge from historic deeds.
For property owners, especially those with inherited or long-held land, it highlights the importance of documenting changes and clarifying boundaries through formal agreements where possible. Nevertheless, where informal understandings have governed land use for years, the law will sometimes uphold those arrangements in the interests of certainty, peace, and practicality.
For professionals advising on boundary matters, Boundary Dispute Case Law Stephenson v Johnson provides a clear example of how the courts will apply a fact-sensitive analysis to determine whether a boundary agreement has arisen.
It stands as a reminder that boundary agreements, even implied ones, are a powerful tool to resolve land disputes—provided the facts support a mutual intention to settle the boundary line.
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.
Geoffrey Adams
BEng (Hons) PgDip FRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London
Rickie Bloom
BSc (Hons) MRICS
Senior Director
Party Walls
London