Boundary disputes often begin with something apparently minor. For instance, a new fence, a wall built slightly out of line, a hedge removed, or a disagreement over a narrow strip of garden.
However, once relations between neighbours deteriorate, the dispute can quickly become about much more than the land itself. Personal feelings become involved, positions harden and the cost of proving where the boundary lies may become entirely disproportionate to the value of the disputed land.
The recent High Court decision in Gibson v New is a striking example. Although the dispute attracted media attention because it involved an ornamental squirrel and offensive songs published online, the real story is a long-running boundary dispute in which the legal costs substantially exceeded the damages ultimately recovered. Let’s dig into the brass tacks of the case and its consequences.
Written by Peggy Lim, Solicitor
How did the dispute begin?
Mr and Mrs Gibson and Mr and Mrs New owned neighbouring properties in Sunnymede Close, Essex. The dispute concerned the boundary between their rear gardens and fencing erected by Mr New.
In 2015, the parties attended mediation and agreed to jointly appoint an independent RICS surveyor, share the cost and accept the surveyor’s determination as final. However, after the first report identified the boundary, the News rejected it. A second surveyor was later involved, but that report was also rejected.
In March 2018, the Gibsons sent a formal pre-action letter asking the News to accept the first surveyor’s boundary and remove the relevant fence and structures. The letter warned that court proceedings might follow, but no response was received and a claim was subsequently issued.
The earlier decision in Gibson v New
In Gibson v New [2021] EWHC 1811 (QB), the High Court upheld the County Court’s decision that the parties were bound by the mediation settlement and the surveyor’s determination.
The court confirmed that an agreement intended to identify an uncertain boundary can amount to a binding boundary agreement, even where the boundary is to be determined by an expert. The judgment stressed that parties should attempt mediation early, before neighbour disputes become personal, destructive and disproportionately expensive.
What happened in the 2026 appeal?
The litigation continued after the 2021 judgment, including a further trial concerning damages, interest and costs. The County Court awarded the Gibsons £9,500 in damages before interest.
The News appealed again. The High Court rejected most of their grounds of appeal. The court accepted only a limited point concerning the Gibsons’ duty to mitigate part of their loss, reducing the damages by £700.
The revised total for damages and interest was £12,600. However, the High Court noted that the costs for the earlier 2021 proceedings were about £120,000. The News were then ordered to pay a further £19,000 towards the costs of the 2026 appeal.
In other words, the legal costs of the claim and appeals were many times greater than the damages recovered.
This is perhaps the most important lesson from the case. A person may have a genuine legal right to protect their land, but that does not necessarily mean that pursuing every issue to trial and appeal is commercially sensible.
Does the Land Registry title plan show the exact boundary?
A common misconception is that the red line on a Land Registry title plan shows the exact legal boundary. In most cases, it does not.
Most title plans show only the general boundary of a property. They do not usually confirm whether the legal boundary runs along one side of a fence, through the middle of it or a short distance away. The plan should therefore not simply be enlarged and measured.
The fence or wall on the ground may also not follow the legal boundary. It may have been placed for convenience or moved or replaced over time.
The starting point is usually the original conveyance or transfer and any plan attached to it. If those documents are unclear, other evidence may be relevant, such as old deeds and plans, photographs, planning records, historic fences or walls, evidence from previous owners and a specialist boundary surveyor’s report.
A “T” mark on a plan may indicate ownership or responsibility for maintaining a boundary feature, but it should be considered together with the wording of the deed.
What should you do when a boundary dispute arises?
-
Preserve the evidence before changing anything
Do not immediately remove a fence, demolish a wall or carry out excavation simply because you believe the feature is on your land.
Take dated photographs and videos. Locate the title documents, conveyances, transfer plans, planning records, previous survey reports and relevant correspondence. Where historic physical features still exist, preserve them until they have been inspected.
Moving or destroying a feature may remove evidence needed to determine the original boundary and may expose you to a claim for trespass or an injunction.
-
Do not rely on the title plan alone
Obtain the full title documents and, where available, the pre-registration deeds. The wording in the conveyance may be more significant than the red edging shown on the current Land Registry plan.
A specialist boundary surveyor may be needed to inspect the site and consider the deeds, plans and historic features together. It is generally preferable for the solicitor and surveyor to work together so that the expert is asked the correct legal and factual questions.
-
Do not ignore a Letter Before Claim
A Letter Before Claim is not simply an informal complaint. It is normally the final step before proceedings are issued and should explain the allegations, the remedy sought and the documents relied upon.
Ignoring it does not make the dispute disappear. It may result in proceedings being issued without further warning and may later be relevant when the court decides who should pay the costs.
A recipient should obtain advice promptly, preserve relevant evidence and provide a reasoned response within the stated or otherwise reasonable period. Where more time is genuinely required to obtain deeds, survey evidence or legal advice, an extension should be requested rather than remaining silent.
The pre-action rules expect parties to exchange sufficient information, understand each other’s positions and consider whether the matter can be resolved without proceedings. An unreasonable refusal to engage or to consider ADR may carry costs consequences.
-
Consider ADR before positions become entrenched
ADR may include direct negotiation, a round-table meeting, mediation, early neutral evaluation or the joint appointment of an independent surveyor.
The advantage is not simply that ADR may save legal costs. A court can declare where a boundary lies, order structures to be removed and award damages, but it cannot restore a workable relationship between neighbours.
Any settlement should be recorded clearly. The agreed line should be shown on an accurate plan, the parties should identify who owns and maintains the relevant fence or wall, and the agreement should address access, future works and registration where appropriate.
The courts recognise that boundary agreements may be informal and may sometimes be inferred from the parties’ conduct. That is another reason to obtain advice before agreeing a new fence line casually or allowing works to proceed without recording the basis on which permission is given.
-
Consider the economics before issuing a claim
Before commencing proceedings, a claimant should consider not only whether the claim is legally arguable, but also:
- What practical result is required;
- The value and importance of the disputed land;
- Whether an injunction is realistic and proportionate;
- The likely surveyor, solicitor and barrister costs;
- Whether expert evidence will be required;
- The risk of losing and paying the opponent’s costs;
- Whether a judgment will resolve the wider neighbour relationship; and
- Whether legal expenses insurance is available.
Boundary litigation can involve site inspections, historic documents, expert reports, witness evidence and detailed plans. Even where the strip of land is small, the evidential exercise may be substantial.
As the court observed in an earlier boundary case, a person is entitled to protect their land, but litigating over a tiny strip can amount to “economic madness”.
-
Take settlement offers seriously
A carefully prepared settlement offer can protect a party’s position on costs. A formal offer made under Part 36 may have significant financial consequences if the receiving party rejects it and then fails to obtain a better result at trial.
A party should not reject an offer simply because accepting it feels like “losing”. The correct comparison is between the proposed settlement and the likely net outcome after damages, legal costs, interest, risk and the time involved in litigation have all been considered.
How can we help?
We can assist property owners at an early stage of a boundary disagreement or after formal proceedings have been threatened or issued.
This may include reviewing title deeds and plans, advising on the legal and evidential position, coordinating with an appropriately qualified surveyor, preparing or responding to a Letter Before Claim, advising on trespass and injunctions, negotiating a boundary agreement, arranging mediation and representing clients in court proceedings.
Early advice is often particularly valuable. It can help identify the real issue, preserve important evidence and explore a proportionate resolution before the dispute becomes personal and the legal costs overtake the value of the land.
Final thought
The lesson from New v Gibson is not that property owners should simply surrender land to avoid boundary disputes.
The lesson is that the method of resolving the dispute matters just as much as the legal right itself.
A few inches of land can lead to years of litigation, prevent a property from being sold or mortgaged and generate costs vastly greater than the compensation eventually awarded. In many cases, an early survey, a properly drafted response and a serious attempt at mediation will achieve more than another round of correspondence, proceedings or appeals.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on [email protected].
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
