Boundary and Neighbour Disputes: What Remedies Can the Court Actually Give?
Boundary and neighbour disputes often begin with a practical problem. A fence may have been built in the wrong place. A neighbour may be parking on land they do not own. A right of way may be blocked. Water may be draining onto the wrong property. Trees, walls, gates, CCTV, garden structures or building works may be interfering with the use of someone else’s land.
When these disputes arise, it is easy to focus on who is right and who is wrong. However, before taking legal action, the more useful question is:
What do you actually want to achieve?
In many neighbour disputes, the answer is not simply “compensation”. What the property owner really wants is for the other person to stop doing something, remove something, reinstate something, or respect the legal boundary or right of way. That usually means considering whether an injunction is needed.
An injunction is a court order requiring someone to do, or stop doing, a particular act. It can be a powerful remedy, but the court does not grant injunctions automatically. The court may decide that damages are enough. In some cases, it may award both an injunction and damages.
This article explains how the court approaches injunctions, damages and proportionality in boundary, trespass and neighbour disputes in England and Wales.
Injunctions are discretionary
Where a neighbour is trespassing, obstructing a right of way, or interfering with another person’s land, the affected owner may feel that the answer is obvious: the neighbour should be ordered to stop.
That may be the right outcome, especially where the interference is continuing, deliberate, or materially affects the use of the property. However, the court still has a discretion.
The older case of Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] set out factors that may justify awarding damages instead of an injunction. Those factors remain relevant, but they are no longer applied as a strict rule.
The modern approach comes from the Supreme Court decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13. The court now takes a broader and more flexible approach. It considers all the circumstances, including:
the seriousness of the interference;
whether the infringement is continuing;
whether money would properly compensate the claimant;
the impact of an injunction on the defendant;
the conduct of the parties;
whether the remedy sought is proportionate.
The court will not usually allow someone to buy their way into continuing a wrongful interference with another person’s land. Equally, it will not necessarily grant an injunction where the practical impact is trivial and damages would be a fair and proportionate remedy.
Trespass and encroachment
Trespass to land occurs where someone enters, remains on, places something on, or interferes with land in the possession of another person without lawful authority.
In neighbour disputes, trespass may include:
building a fence or wall over the boundary;
placing objects on another person’s land;
parking on private land without permission;
entering land without consent;
interfering with boundary markers;
allowing structures, drains, pipes or projections to encroach.
Where trespass is ongoing, the claimant may seek an injunction requiring the trespass to stop or requiring the defendant to remove the encroachment.
The strength of that request depends heavily on the facts. A small encroachment may still be serious if it blocks access, prevents use of a path, interferes with parking, affects drainage, or prevents ordinary enjoyment of the property. By contrast, a minor encroachment at the far end of a large garden, causing no practical problem, may be treated differently.
The court is concerned with real-world consequences, not just technical ownership.
How damages may be assessed
Damages for trespass and neighbour disputes are fact-sensitive. There is no automatic tariff.
Depending on the circumstances, damages may be assessed by reference to:
physical damage to the land;
the cost of repair or reinstatement;
reduction in the value of the property;
loss of use of the affected land;
loss of amenity or enjoyment;
a reasonable fee for the wrongful use of the land;
additional loss caused by the defendant’s conduct.
If there is no measurable financial loss, damages may be modest. In some cases, they may be nominal. This means a claimant may establish that their legal rights were infringed but recover only a very small sum.
That does not necessarily mean the claim was pointless. Sometimes the real value lies in obtaining an injunction or a declaration of rights. However, if the claim is only about damages, the likely amount recoverable must be considered carefully before litigation is started.
User damages and negotiating damages
There are cases where the defendant has used another person’s land without permission, but the claimant cannot show a straightforward financial loss. In those circumstances, the court may sometimes award damages based on the value of the right that has been infringed.
These are often described as user damages or negotiating damages.
The idea is to ask what sum might reasonably have been agreed between the parties if the defendant had sought permission in advance. For example, what would a reasonable landowner have charged for allowing the use or interference?
This does not mean that the claimant is automatically entitled to all the profit or benefit obtained by the defendant. The modern Supreme Court decision in Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20 confirms that negotiating damages are compensatory. They are used where the economic value of the infringed right is the appropriate measure of loss.
In property disputes, this may be relevant where a neighbour has obtained a practical benefit from using land, airspace, access, or some other property right without agreement.
The evidence matters. The court will consider the nature of the right, the extent of the use, the duration of the interference, the benefit obtained, and what a reasonable bargain might have looked like.
Loss of amenity and nuisance
Neighbour disputes may also involve nuisance. This can include unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land, such as noise, odour, smoke, vibration, drainage, flooding, water discharge, sewage, or other continuing disturbance.
Damages in nuisance are usually concerned with injury to the property or interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. The personal distress suffered by the occupier is not treated as a separate free-standing claim in the same way as in some other areas of law. However, the actual impact on the people living at the property can still be relevant because it helps show how the land’s amenity has been affected.
For example, if a nuisance makes a garden unusable, prevents windows being opened, causes persistent smell, or materially affects ordinary domestic life, that may support a claim for damages for loss of amenity.
Again, the amount depends on the evidence.
Aggravated damages
Aggravated damages may be available in exceptional cases, but they should not be assumed.
They are more likely to be considered where the defendant’s behaviour has been deliberately oppressive, insulting, threatening, vindictive or high-handed, and where that conduct has increased the injury suffered by the claimant.
In neighbour disputes, this might arise where someone deliberately blocks access, repeatedly interferes with rights of way, threatens to prevent access, or acts with the intention of making the claimant’s life difficult.
However, aggravated damages are not awarded simply because relations between neighbours have broken down. The court will need evidence of conduct that justifies an additional award.
Surveyor’s fees and expert costs
Boundary disputes often involve surveyors. However, the cost of instructing a surveyor is not always recoverable as damages.
A useful distinction is this:
If the surveyor was instructed to identify the boundary, prepare evidence, or help decide whether there is a claim, the cost is more likely to be treated as an investigation or litigation cost. Whether it can be recovered will then depend on the applicable costs rules, proportionality, allocation, expert evidence rules, and the court’s discretion.
If the defendant’s wrongful act caused the cost to be incurred, the position may be different. For example, if a neighbour removed boundary markers, damaged survey pegs, interfered with an established boundary line, or caused a further survey or reinstatement exercise to become necessary, there may be a stronger argument that the cost forms part of the damages claim.
This is an important distinction. An expense can be useful and reasonable without necessarily being recoverable as damages.
Proportionality and costs
Boundary disputes can become expensive very quickly. A point of principle may be important, but the court will still expect the parties to act proportionately.
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, cases must be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. The court also expects parties to consider suitable methods of dispute resolution, including negotiation and mediation where appropriate.
Before issuing proceedings, a party should usually consider:
whether the issue can be narrowed;
whether the title documents and plans are clear;
whether photographs, measurements or survey evidence are needed;
whether the other party has been given a clear opportunity to resolve the matter;
whether mediation or another form of ADR is sensible;
whether the remedy sought justifies the cost of the claim.
A party who refuses reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute may face costs consequences, even if they later succeeds on some or all of the claim.
Practical examples
A small encroachment is not always a small problem. If a fence has moved only a few inches but now blocks the only access route to the rear of the property, the practical impact may be significant. An injunction may be easier to justify.
On the other hand, if a minor encroachment affects an unused strip of land at the end of a large garden and has caused no measurable loss or interference, the court may be more likely to consider whether damages are enough.
The same principle applies to rights of way. A temporary or minor inconvenience may be treated differently from a repeated or deliberate obstruction that prevents ordinary access to a home, garage, garden or parking area.
The court looks at the reality of the interference.
What should you do before starting a claim?
Before bringing a boundary or neighbour dispute claim, it is important to identify:
the legal right being relied on;
how that right has been infringed;
whether the problem is continuing;
what evidence proves the interference;
what remedy is actually needed;
whether damages can be calculated;
whether an injunction is realistic;
whether the cost of proceedings is proportionate;
whether ADR should be attempted first.
A carefully prepared letter before action can sometimes resolve the matter without court proceedings. Where proceedings are necessary, clear evidence and a proportionate strategy are essential.
Conclusion
Boundary and neighbour disputes are rarely just about land on a plan. They often affect privacy, access, enjoyment, property value and day-to-day life.
However, going to court should be approached carefully. Proving that a neighbour is wrong does not automatically mean that the court will grant the exact remedy requested. The court may grant an injunction, award damages, make a declaration, or decide that damages are sufficient.
The right strategy depends on the seriousness of the interference, the evidence available, the remedy required, and whether the cost of pursuing the claim is proportionate.
At Parachute Law, we can advise you on boundary disputes, trespass, nuisance, rights of way, injunctions, damages, letters before action and neighbour dispute strategy.
Related Articles:
UK land and property: what is happening with freehold and leasehold reform?
How to Invest Under the UK’s New Property Fault Line
Do I Have Any Rights If My Partner Owns Our Home?
