The case of Van Zyl and Another v Walker Smith [2025] EWHC 136 (Ch) is a prime example of how small-scale neighbour disputes can escalate into complex legal battles. This case revolved around a boundary disagreement between two leaseholders in Claygate, Surrey, following the controversial removal of a hedge. Here’s what you need to know.
Case Background
The dispute was between Van Zyl (the appellants) and Walker Smith (the respondent), who owned neighbouring maisonettes at 34 and 36 Albany Crescent. The disagreement focused on the precise location of their shared boundary.
The key issue? In April 2019, Van Zyl removed a long-standing hedge that had marked the boundary for decades. They replaced it with a fence, shifting the boundary approximately 500mm further into Walker Smith’s property. This led to a legal challenge where Walker Smith argued that the hedge had always marked the correct boundary.
Court's Decision
The High Court ruled in favour of Walker Smith, finding that the removed hedge had indeed marked the legal boundary. The judge referred to historical evidence, including old photographs and surveyor reports, which showed that the hedge had been in place since at least 1970.
The judge concluded that Van Zyl's unilateral removal of the hedge and repositioning of the fence had complicated the dispute and ultimately ruled that the original hedge line was the correct boundary.
Key Legal Takeaways
- Physical features like hedges can define boundaries – Even if a lease plan exists, historical use of physical markers like hedges may take precedence.
- Land Registry title plans only provide a general boundary – The court ruled that plans labeled "for identification purposes only" are not definitive proof of a boundary line.
- Unilateral actions can backfire – Removing a boundary feature without agreement can weaken your legal position and complicate court rulings.
- Surveyor reports can be challenged – The court found inconsistencies in Van Zyl’s surveyor’s evidence, reinforcing the importance of accurate surveying.
The Cost of Going to Court
This case highlights the high financial and emotional costs of boundary disputes. While the disputed land measured only a few centimeters, the case ended up in the High Court with significant legal expenses. A more cost-effective approach could have been mediation or expert determination before escalating to litigation.
Final Thoughts
The Van Zyl v Walker Smith case shows why historical boundary markers matter and why unilateral actions can lead to costly legal battles. If you’re involved in a boundary dispute, consider mediation or legal advice early to avoid unnecessary litigation.