It is impossible to draw a line under boundary disputes, discovers Jonathan Fowles
It seems that no matter how many times the Court of Appeal warns against the stressfulness and cost of boundary disputes, the territorial imperative continues to prove irrepressible. So, in the recent case of Cameron v Boggiano [2012] EWCA Civ 157, Mummery LJ (as he did in Bradford v James [2008] EWCA Civ 837) urged neighbours carefully to consider the human consequences of litigation in advance. He went on to say: “If the court’s warnings are ignored, there will one day be a final reckoning of the total expenditure and immeasurable human misery, and the hoary maxim ‘he who goes to law holds a wolf by the ears’ will strike a chord.”
When all else fails, the court nevertheless has to decide cases, and lawyers continue to have to give advice on matters other than the cost-efficiency of favourable settlement. In this respect, it is reasonable to feel that the law of boundaries is capable of the proverbial wolf’s trickery. Boundary disputes have been a victim of
