Boundary Agreement Letter

It is not clear on what basis the General Court concluded that the compromise agreement had the consequence that the applicants had an interest in transferring the land to the defendants. Under the harmful property regime established by the Basic Law of 2002, a squatter is not interested in the country unless he is registered. It therefore appears that at the time of the agreement there was nothing for the applicants to yield. On this basis, Article 2 cannot apply. In 2012, in the case of Yeates and another -v-Line and another, the Court of Appeal ruled that an informal boundary agreement should not comply with the provisions of the Property Commissions Act 1989, which meant that the memorandum did not need to be drawn up in the form of an executed deed or in the form of a contract. There are no formal requirements for its preparation and therefore there is no need to use the services of a surveyor. However, the memo and plan should be as clear and precise as possible. After receiving the application, the cadastre sets the limit and updates the register and plan accordingly. The border will no longer be a general border within the meaning of section 60 Land Registration Act 2002, but a fixed and defined border.

In this case, the Tribunal found that there was no explicit derogation from Section 2 for border agreements concluded for the purpose of “delimitation” of the border. You can generally avoid having to establish a border agreement by having an informal conversation with your neighbour. In section 4, under “Notifications in order of priority”, you write: “A border agreement to note”. Write under “Fees paid (£)” “£40”. This argument also applied to Section 2. Therefore, for a border agreement to be an agreement to which Section 2 applies, the objective of the parties to the conclusion of the agreement must be that it leads to a sale or other transfer of a land interest. § 2 would not be applicable solely because the contract had the effect of transferring a land interest if the parties did not intend to make such a transfer. This was confirmed in the Joyce vs. Rigolli case in 2004. The Court of Appeal stated that, if the purpose of an informal border plan was to confirm the position of a border, when the formal provisions on enforcement as an act had not been complied with and the parties intended to effectively transfer trivial land, section 2 of the Property (Commission miscellaneous) act 1989 (enforcement as an instrument, etc.) does not apply.

Cited in this case, where the other cases Scarfe vs. Adams in 1981 and Kingston vs. Phillips in 1978. Even if documented in writing, border agreements should be used with caution.. . .

Klicken Sie, um mehr zu erfahren