In section 4, under « Notifications in order of priority », you write: « A border agreement to note ». Write under « Fees paid (£) » « £40 ». The cadastre of HM clarifies the border agreements and the defined boundaries First of all, it should be noted that the title plan registered with the cadastre can not be taken into account the legal boundary between the lands. The limit resulting from such an agreement does not correspond to the initial carriage. It is therefore inappropriate to use an agreed limit as a means of achieving such a land transaction requiring a transfer or a transfer instrument. The land registry would reject an application to register such a transaction as a border agreement. A court may make a statement about the legal boundary between two or more properties. The court also has the power to award damages or order an injunction to prevent intrusion and/or intervention. Section 4 has been amended to refer to a recent Upper Tribunal decision, which clarifies that the purpose of the boundary determination procedure is to provide « accurate public records of the boundary position of registered land » rather than « settle border disputes between neighbours ». He warns: « It should be noted that the process of agreeing the border with a neighbour, whether for the purpose of concluding a border agreement or for the purposes of a given border, can even lead to violent disagreements, perhaps where there were none before. This could lead to a dispute over the border. The agreement may, if necessary, be formalized at a later date, at the request of the cadastre, at a fixed limit. The case highlighted the importance of bringing security to the border instead of leaving it « blurred on the edges. » Despite this advice, I know of one case where a landowner used an application to determine the exact line of the border, to force his neighbour to no longer ignore the problem and to convince the cadastre that the matter should be referred to the adjudicator at the cadastre to make a decision.
as the exact line of the border. The case of Acco Properties Ltd v. Severn reinforces many of the legal principles at stake in border disputes. While Judge Simon Barker told QC that it was « economic madness » to judge a tiny strip of land, he upheld the right to do so. Unless previously specified, this only indicates the general position of a limit and cannot be left to its correctness. Ordnance Survey`s Os plans tend to mark features like hedges and fences instead of legal boundaries. The scale means that the features can drop up to 2.3 meters. The parties agree that the legal boundary between the country, within their respective registered titles, which runs from the point marked « A » to the point « B » in the annexed plan, as shown by the red line between these points. . . .