General Boundaries, Specific Problems: Handy Cross v Vanni

Where exactly is the boundary, and what happens when the title plan doesn’t give a clear answer?

In this Newsflash episode, Lizzie Collin is joined by Richard Snape to dissect the High Court’s decision in Handy Cross Dev Co Ltd v Vanni Properties Ltd [2026] a development-site boundary dispute based on an imprecise title plan.

After an influx of boundary cases in the last year this wasn’t just a technical disagreement but went to the heart of how courts determine general boundaries, and when extrinsic evidence can genuinely assist to interpret ambiguity, not cure poor drafting.

Under the general boundaries rule (s.60 Land Registration Act 2002), title plans show general, not exact, boundaries. If the wording of the transfer and the attached plan leave genuine uncertainty as to where the boundary lies, the court may look beyond the four corners of the document following Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley.

Richard and Lizzie explore:

•How the court approaches “general boundaries” where transfer plans lack precision.
•The strict threshold for admitting extrinsic evidence and why it must be genuinely probative.
•Why post-dating conduct only carries weight if it is bilateral.
•The dangers of assuming planning permissions and approved drawings can later fix unclear title boundaries.
•What this means in practice for developers and local authorities

The High Court confirmed the County Court and held one party’s unilateral assumption about the boundary is irrelevant. The court’s role is to interpret the legal document, not to achieve what seems commercially sensible years later.

If you deal with development land, this is one to listen to before your next transaction.

Other cases mentioned include:

• Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley [1999
• Acco Properties Ltd v Severn [2011]
• Maximus Networks Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2018]

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Transcript

Lizzie Collin
Hello Richard.

Richard Snape
Hello, Lizzy. What? Have you been doing lately? Since I. Last spoke to you.

Lizzie Collin
Not very much.

Richard Snape
You've been downloading podcasts.

Lizzie Collin
Downloading podcasts, getting ready for the next 1. So we are here on your birthday Eve as you keep reminding me.

Richard Snape
It's not any old birthday, is it? Don't forget.

Richard Snape
Don't forget it's any old, not any old birthdays 40.

Lizzie Collin
It's the big 40.

Richard Snape

Yeah.
Lizzie Collin

Yeah. So we had to talk about a case from the 12th of February, which was all around boundary disputes in commercial property and it's a High Court case called Handy Cross Development Code Limited and Vanni Properties Limited. So should we get into it? Do you want to tell us the background to this one?

Richard Snape
Devco, I think it's down in the. In the in the title. Yeah, I mean, we've had a lot of kind of boundary issues cases this last year or so, including those those ones on boundary agreements that white and Jack from some of that we made a we did a podcast on. But this is a commercial property boundary. I should dispute 1. It's very useful for regular for people like local authorities as well. I'll tell you background facts, shall I and go through that? It all took place on the edge of High Wycombe. Just off the M14, do you know it?

Lizzie Collin
High Wycombe? Yes I do.

Richard Snape
Yeah, the M4. I know I used to do. Quite a lot of courses and. Some hotel around. That kind of area actually, but they cancelled it, land the land. It was brownfield, sort of with no distinguishing features on it site, but they were selling it off to for development. And there were three specific, you know, sort of. People going to build on this on these different parts of this. One part was going to have a Waitrose on it, but they weren't involved in the dispute so we won't deal with them too much. But the Hunter cross devco. We're going to. Build a Hilton Hotel and did build a Hilton Hotel. Eventually on it, Hilton being a primary. Franchise. It was called the Hampton by Hilton and and the valley properties at neighbouring premises, which was going to be offices and self storage units. And it seems that well, the handy cross were the first to to exchange him in November 2018. You know, the Council being selling with Wickham District Council being the sellers, they exchange contracts and then completed on in December 2018. And they had planning permission to build this hotel, but they tended to make an application to amend the planning permission with the Council. The Vanney bought the neighbouring property in April. I think it was of of 2019. Uh. And sometime in 2019 anyway. And in the meantime, the. The planning application the the amend the amendments, the planning application had been made with. The Council, when it was. First laid off when when the Hilton first acquired this land of December 2019, the the boundaries were such a large scale that they didn't really with accuracy, state state what the boundary was. And is in the transfer itself, but there was a separate drainage plan laying out where the drains were and so on, but that was stated to be, you know, unsuitable for scaling, so that shouldn't be relied on either. And then when they made the application to to amend the Planning Commission. We provided obviously plans for the Council's planning authority, sort of. Which quite separately, they built the hotel, completed about 2 1/2 years afterwards after they completed, and also an access Rd. And then the dispute arose that vanny if that's the way you pronounce it and. Seems to have what they claimed did handy cross that Vanny had in trespassed on their access where it should have been. Land originally in the county court, they were claiming a large piece of land Vanney had built this sort of hoardings, wooden hoardings, which handy cross would claim was the encroachment they got in trouble with the county court for being a bit too greedy as to what they were claiming with their land. So they they rained back when it got to the High Court. We only claimed a three foot. Wide stretch of land, you know which was in dispute on this this access point and these hoardings. And that's basically what the case was about. You know, if you've got an accurate, you know, plan which is not sufficiently accurate, how do you determine there wasn't weren't any boundary features that helped, but how do you determine where the boundary should be? And that was what it was all about, Lizzie.

Lizzie Collin
So what happened next? What did the courts say?

Richard Snape
They they sort of more or less confirmed the the county got basically what happens if the plans are not sufficiently accurate to determine the boundaries. You've always got a general boundary as well and the languishing anyway, unless you've. Successfully applied to determine the boundaries of the land registration rules, but they try to argue did handy cross that. You should be able to rely on the the the the planning application and the plans and the and in the planning application, which would sort of confirm where the boundary was because the local authority had approved these things and the local authority was the. The High Court and the county court refused to accept that it's a case called Allian Lane, which is 2007. The Court of Appeal case, which basically said you can find you, can have extrinsic evidence to decide what the boundary should be, but only if the the boundary is unclear. Then you could introduce extrinsic evidence, but the evidence has to be probative. You know, it's gotta basically a way of actually proving the bar. And that wasn't the case. Now, even lane and you could sort of look at things that have happened post dating the actual laying down of the boundary and conduct. So that's what they're basically arguing, and and we can use this, you know, plans and the planning application, the High Court basically said that to be. If you're looking at post dating conduct, then it's gotta be bilateral between the two parties and this wasn't bilateral. It was just a new lateral planning application. And also they they said that it's a well established principle. This is why it's important for local authorities and possibly other bodies. As well, you have sort of diverse functions. The the fact that the planning authority is quite separate from, you know, political authority, estates and so on. And the fact that you, the planning authority, you've accepted these plans didn't mean to say that it was binding on the Estates Department, Wicked District Council. So you could look at the drainage. Plans to determine the boundaries and that was basically it. And Andy Cross basically lost.

Lizzie Collin
So why is this one important?

Richard Snape
Quite simple I suppose, because of what I just mentioned. If you're somebody like a local authority, but other bodies with functions like that, it's it's. It's an important sort of issue. You distinguish the various roles you have would be the case that they quoted MAXIMUS networks, which was about sort of. The kiosks and the Secretary of State, which had said that I think in 2018 a similar thing and it's you know you're planning. The role is quite separate than your sort of the states role and sort of management and selling of properties. And also you know sort of bringing forward Alley and Lane and that any poster dating conduct has to be bilateral and also. You know purpose, it determines the fact you can only look at intrinsic evidence if there's also a a sort of question marking issue as to whether where you know the how accurate the plans are, how how the plan was from 2019 weren't sufficiently accurate. And then there's another matter and that's it because he.

Lizzie Collin
Thank you very much, Richard.

Richard Snape
My pleasure.