White (Appellant) v Alder and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0095

Parties

Appellant(s)

Darren White

Respondent(s)

Michael and Sheila Alder

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that: (1) A boundary agreement binds successors in title by the agreement itself and without an additional event such as adverse possession or subsequent estoppel; (2) A boundary agreement bound a successor-in-title who had no prior knowledge of the agreement.

Facts

This is a case about a contested cottage extension. In late October 2005, the predecessors in title to the “Willow Cottage” orally agreed with their neighbours of “The Old Stores”, to the location of the boundary of their respective properties. They also agreed that The Old Stores’ owners owned the physical boundary features. This was later recorded in writing. In May 2016, the new owner of the Willow Cottage, Mr White, demolished part of the boundary wall between the two properties, and constructed an extension. Mr and Mrs Alder, who now owned The Old Stores, alleged that the foundations of the extension trespassed on their land, based on the earlier boundary agreement. It was later alleged that, on various dates in 2019, Mr White committed or caused to be committed further acts of trespass. On 15 September 2020, the Respondents issued proceedings complaining of the 2019 trespass. A trial was heard on the preliminary issues regarding the boundary agreement. On 29 July 2022, District Judge Mills found the boundary agreement binding on the successors in title to Willow Cottage, Mr White. On 20 October 2023, HHJ Duddridge dismissed Mr White’s appeal. A further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 7 April 2025. Mr White now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

10 June 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top