A recent case in the High Court on boundary disputes operates as a warning when instructing surveyors in boundary disputes. In this case, the High Court found that two neighbours disputing over their boundary inadvertently entered into a boundary agreement.
Two waring neighbours arguing over their boundary (an incredibly common scenario, unfortunately) had, as is common, sought to engage a joint surveyor to determine the location of the boundary between their two properties.
The Court, having considered the respective parties’ discussions as to the precise remit of the expert’s instructions, determined that as one of the parties had suggested instructing the expert jointly to ‘assess’ the boundary (the other agreeing this approach) that expert’s decision was, in effect, a binding boundary agreement on the parties.
This case does have a few nuances, in that the expert had opined in his report that as it was not possible to determine the exact legal boundary (due to changes on the ground over the years) that the best solution would be to create a new “determined boundary”.
Perhaps the key takeaway points of this is consideration as to:
- Whether the parties should adopt the usage of a single expert (acting only for the one party, rather than all parties); or,
- If a joint expert is chosen, the exact nature of the discussions leading to the appointment of the expert.
What this case absolutely does is underscores the importance of the need to obtain legal advice when involved in a boundary dispute. If you and a neighbour agree the appointment of an expert and the expert assess the boundary, you could find yourself beholden to their determination whether you intended to be or not.
Comments