Boundary dispute resolved between neighbours in Claygate

Boundary dispute resolved between neighbours in Claygate

The High Court has handed down its judgment in a boundary dispute between neighbours in Claygate, Surrey, clarifying the boundary between two leasehold properties. The case, heard by Mr Justice Marcus Smith, involved appellants Stiaan and Tersia Van Zyl and respondent Peter James Walker-Smith.

The dispute centred on the boundary line between the leasehold land at 34 Albany Crescent and 36 Albany Crescent. The original order, issued by His Honour Judge Saggerson, was appealed by the Van Zyls, who contested the boundary's delineation as determined in the lower court.

The properties in question are maisonettes within a larger building, with No 34 being the ground floor property and No 36 the first floor. The leases for these properties date back to the late 1980s, with No 34's lease predating No 36's by a few months. Both leases included plans for identification purposes, which became central to the dispute.

The court examined whether the boundary should follow a line marked by a hedge, which had been a longstanding feature, or a line suggested by the lease plans. The hedge, which was removed by the Van Zyls in 2019, had historically marked the boundary between the properties.

Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the lower court's decision, agreeing that the hedge line, as it existed prior to its removal, represented the true boundary. The judgment emphasized the importance of physical features existing at the time of the lease's execution over the plans, which were for identification only.

The appellants argued that the lease plans should be the primary reference for determining the boundary. However, the court found that the plans were not to scale and lacked precision, reinforcing the decision to rely on the historical hedge line.

This ruling underscores the significance of physical features in property disputes, particularly when plans are not definitive. It provides clarity for the parties involved and sets a precedent for similar cases where lease plans are ambiguous.

The judgment was delivered remotely, reflecting the court's adaptation to modern communication methods. It highlights the complexities of property law and the necessity of thorough examination of both documentary and physical evidence.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.

Copyright & permissions