This appeal was heard on 24 June 2025 and concerned appointing jointly instructed surveyors in boundary disputes, arising from a boundary dispute between neighbours Mr and Mrs Crea and Mr and Mrs Camp, Crea v Camp [2025] EWHC 2638 (KB). The judgment, handed down on 1 August 2024, found that the parties had entered into a binding agreement by accepting the boundary as determined by their jointly instructed surveyor. Mr and Mrs Crea appealed on the issue of whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the parties were bound by the surveyor’s report.
Facts of the case
Mr and Mrs Crea first proposed a jointly instructed surveyor when they wrote a letter to the Camp’s. The letter states “As a surveyor has to be involved to assess the wall, we will also ask him to assess the disputed boundaries. We suggest this is done jointly…”
Mr and Mrs Camp replied “We are advised that the best way forward is to jointly instruct a Boundary Surveyor (who must be impartial by law) and agree beforehand to accept their result. They would need to be briefed by both parties and provided with all known documents to avoid duplicate costs.” They recommended Mr Brown, a surveyor and offered to contact them.
Mr and Mrs Crea responded “We are content that a joint surveyor be appointed to assess the boundary and your suggestion of using Lewis Brown is acceptable. Please proceed and contact them.”
Mr Brown was duly instructed and produced a report. His report started by stating his joint instruction and then explained “I was asked to ascertain the location of the legal boundary between the two properties…”
Mr and Mrs Crea were unhappy with Mr Brown’s report. They alleged bias and asserted that they had not “signed up” to a binding agreement as to the boundary. Mr Brown withdrew as the parties’ jointly instructed boundary expert.
The appeal
The Honourable Mr Justice Pepperall held that the alleged agreement is said to have bound the parties to accept the expert determination of their boundary by the jointly instructed surveyor. This must be addressed based on conventional contractual principles by reference to the parties’ letters and any other admissible evidence.
The letter by Mr and Mrs Camp accepted the proposal of a jointly instructed surveyor, whilst proposing four further matters:
- The parties should agree beforehand that they would accept the result of the joint instruction.
- They proposed a methodology by which both sides could make representations to and provide relevant documents to the surveyor.
- They formally proposed that they should agree to share the costs of the instruction. Such term was implicit in the Creas’ earlier letter but had not been made explicit.
- They proposed that their jointly instructed surveyor should be Lewis Brown.
This was a counter-offer which, while accepting the kernel of the original offer in respect of the boundary, proposed some additional terms as to the proposed joint instruction.
The real question for the judge was whether Mr and Mrs Creas’ letter accepted the Camps’ counteroffer that the parties should agree beforehand to be bound by the surveyor’s report, or whether the Creas’ silence indicated that such term were not accepted.
The Judge applied the contract law principle “statements that are not intended to vary the terms of the offer, or to add new terms, do not disqualify the acceptance, even where they do not precisely match the words of the offer.” The Creas’ letter did not purport to introduce any new term, nor did it invite further discussion of the terms. However, it did appear to treat the parties’ agreement as having been concluded, with the most reasonable interpretation being that the parties had entered into a binding agreement.
The appeal was dismissed.
Why is this matter important?
Parties should be cautious with agreeing to instruct joint surveyors without obtaining legal advice as they could end up stuck with an ‘agreed boundary line’ (having agreed to be bound by the surveyor’s decision) which is wholly different to the true legal boundary of a property.
How Moore Barlow can help
Our Real Estate Disputes solicitors have extensive experience advising on property disputes. Our approach focuses on providing advice at an early stage to help you reach a cost-effective solution as quickly as possible. With our expert team based across our offices in London, Richmond, Southampton, Guildford, Lymington and Woking, we’re ideally placed to offer specialist support on a local and national level.
