14 September 2015

King West

Boundary Feature Clarification

Boundary Feature Clarification

The recent Court of Appeal court case Parmar and other v Upton has clarified the age-old presumption of the hedge and ditch boundary. This is where is it presumed that where a hedge is planted adjacent to a ditch the ditch was dug on the extremity of their own land. Throwing the spoil back onto their land to create the bank on which a hedge may then be planted.

The court case came about from an alleged trespass to a boundary, along which ran a ditch. The claimant successfully brought a case of trespass to the County Court against their neighbour. The neighbour appealed the case but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the court was not persuaded to depart from the County Court’s conclusion that there was nothing to rebut the hedge and ditch presumptions. Additionally, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the Defendants argument that the conveyance to the Claimants only conveyed the land up to the hedge. The conveyance only indicated general boundaries and it was upheld that the conveyance to the Claimants included the land on the far side of the hedge under the hedge and ditch rule.

Our website uses cookies so that we can provide a better browsing experience. Continue to use the site as normal if you're happy with this, or find out how to manage cookies