Introduction

The case of Lowe & Anor v. William Davis Ltd ([2018] UKUT 206 (TCC)) adjudicated by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) on June 26, 2018, addresses critical issues surrounding land registration and boundary determination under the Land Registration Act 2002. The dispute arose between Mr. and Mrs. Lowe, the registered proprietors of 10 Fishpond Way, Woodthorpe, and William Davis Ltd, the proprietor of adjacent land. The central contention involved the precise demarcation of the boundary line between the two properties, specifically whether it lay along the center of a hedge or extended beyond it. This case also examined the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in making substantive findings on boundary locations and the subsequent costs awarded.

Summary of the Judgment

William Davis Ltd initiated an application under section 60(3) of the Land Registration Act 2002 to determine the exact boundary line between its property (title no. LT301726) and that of Mr. and Mrs. Lowe (title no. LT314291). The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) directed the Chief Land Registrar to cancel this application, citing inaccuracies in the application plan. However, the FTT proceeded to make findings on the boundary's location, favoring William Davis Ltd over Mr. and Mrs. Lowe. Mr. and Mrs. Lowe appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT), challenging both the FTT's jurisdiction to determine the boundary and the accuracy of its findings. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT’s jurisdiction, affirmed the boundary as the center line of the hedge, and dismissed the appeal against the costs order requiring Mr. and Mrs. Lowe to pay 70% of William Davis Ltd’s costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to elucidate the FTT’s jurisdiction. Notably:

• Murdoch v Amesbury [2016] UKUT 3 (TCC): This case questioned the FTT’s authority to determine boundary locations when an application for exact boundary determination was dismissed due to plan inaccuracies. The Upper Tribunal held that the FTT lacked jurisdiction to make substantive boundary findings in such circumstances.
• Bean v Katz [2016] UKUT 168 (TCC): Contrasting Murdoch, this decision affirmed the FTT’s jurisdiction to make boundary determinations even when plan inaccuracies were present, provided that the overall matter permitted such findings.
• Silkstone v Tatnall [2012] 1 WLR 400: This case provided guidance on interpreting land boundaries and the significance of accurate land plans in boundary disputes.
• Inhenagwa v Onyeneho [2018] 1 P&CR 10: Addressed the issue of whether findings by a tribunal give rise to issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings.
• Jayasinghe v Liyanage [2010] 1 WLR 2106: Offered insights into identifying "the matter" referred to the FTT under section 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002.

These precedents provided a framework for assessing the FTT’s authority and the scope of its decision-making in boundary determinations.

Legal Reasoning

The Upper Tribunal delved into the statutory provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002, particularly sections 60 and 73, alongside relevant Land Registration Rules 2003 (rules 118-120). The core legal question was whether the FTT possessed the authority to determine the exact boundary line despite the plan's stated minor inaccuracies.

The Upper Tribunal reasoned that:

• The application under section 60 necessitated the determination of the exact boundary line, which inherently involved assessing the accuracy of the submitted plan.
• The FTT has the discretion to either determine the boundary’s location or direct the registrar to cancel the application based on plan inaccuracies.
• Precedents like Bean v Katz support the notion that the FTT can make substantive boundary findings even when some procedural deficiencies exist, provided these do not entirely negate the applicability of rule 118.
• The FTT’s role encompasses case management, allowing it to navigate between resolving preliminary issues (such as plan accuracy) and substantive determinations (like boundary location).

The Tribunal concluded that the FTT retained jurisdiction to address both the boundary's location and the application's procedural aspects, thereby affirming its authority to make a definitive boundary determination despite the plan's minor inaccuracies.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future boundary disputes and land registration applications:

• Affirmed FTT Authority: Reinforces the FTT’s capability to make substantive boundary determinations even when procedural issues, like plan inaccuracies, are present.
• Clarity on Jurisdiction: Provides a clearer understanding of when the FTT can exercise its discretion to decide on boundary locations versus directing application cancellations.
• Impact on Landowners: Landowners seeking boundary determinations can have greater confidence in the FTT’s willingness to engage with the merits of their cases, notwithstanding minor procedural flaws.
• Guidance for Practitioners: Legal professionals can better advise clients on the prospects of successfully challenging boundary determinations and understanding the nuances of tribunal jurisdiction.

Overall, the decision strengthens the procedural framework under the Land Registration Act 2002, ensuring that substantive issues, such as boundary locations, receive appropriate judicial consideration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Jurisdiction: The authority granted to a court or tribunal to make legal decisions and judgments. In this case, whether the FTT could legally determine the boundary location.
• Section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002: Governs the determination of exact boundary lines between registered land parcels.
• Issue Estoppel: A legal principle preventing parties from re-litigating an issue that has already been resolved in court or tribunal proceedings.
• Adverse Possession: A principle allowing someone to claim ownership of land belonging to another if they have occupied it openly without permission for a statutory period.
• First-tier Tribunal (FTT): The initial level of tribunal where disputes, such as boundary determinations, are heard and resolved.
• Upper Tribunal (UT): The appellate body that reviews decisions made by the FTT to ensure legality and fairness.
• Boundary Determination: The legal process of establishing the precise line dividing two pieces of land.
• Land Registration Rules 2003: Regulations that govern various aspects of land registration in the UK, including boundary determinations.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal’s judgment in Lowe & Anor v. William Davis Ltd underscores the FTT’s robust authority in resolving boundary disputes under the Land Registration Act 2002. By affirming its jurisdiction to make substantive findings on boundary locations despite minor procedural inaccuracies, the Tribunal ensures that landowners can effectively resolve disputes through the existing legal framework. This decision not only clarifies the extent of the FTT’s powers but also provides valuable guidance for future litigation involving boundary determinations. Consequently, this case holds substantial significance in the realm of property law, reinforcing the mechanisms available to landowners for precise boundary resolutions and fostering confidence in the land registration process.