From Chats to Contracts: Making Informal Agreements 

It is very common for people to make contracts with each other informally, whether this is verbally, recording nothing in writing, or via informal correspondence, where there is no separate written agreement. This can happen particularly when they are friends or neighbours. 

But what happens when someone doesn't uphold their side of the bargain? How far can the content of verbal or other informal agreements be upheld in a court of law?

A recent ruling by the High Court has shed some light on this conundrum and has determined that informal exchanges between parties can indeed legally bind them, in relation to agreements about where the boundary between their property lies. 

In Crea v Camp [2025] EWHC 2638 (KB), two neighbours were in dispute as to the correct position of the boundary between their properties. 

How This Boundary Dispute Arose

The parties agreed to jointly instruct a surveyor to “assess” where the true boundary between their properties should be. 

The Creas initially suggested the appointment of a surveyor to their neighbours, saying that they should ask him “to assess the disputed boundaries.”

The Camps agreed to “jointly instruct a Boundary Surveyor (who must be impartial by law) and agree beforehand to accept their result.” The Camps then suggested Mr. Brown as the surveyor. 

The Creas responded to say: “We are content that a joint surveyor be appointed to assess the boundary and your suggestion of using Lewis Brown is acceptable”.

Mr. Brown was therefore instructed as a surveyor, and provided his report confirming where he thought the correct boundary lay. However, the Creas were unhappy with the findings of the report. They stated they had never agreed to be bound by the findings of the surveyor in their correspondence with the Camps. 

The trial judge found that both parties had agreed to be bound by the surveyor’s findings. The Creas appealed the decision.

Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed the Creas' appeal. He found the letters between parties were to be assessed by the usual contractual principles, and there had been both an offer and acceptance within the letters to be bound by the surveyor’s report. 

He found the Creas' initial letter was an offer, to which the Camps made a counter-offer, which included the caveat to be bound by the result. 

This was then accepted by the Creas. Although they were silent on the matter of being bound by the suggestion from the Camps that they should also abide by the surveyor's findings, they did not enter any further discussion on that point. Through a normal reading of the correspondence, it would therefore appear that they were content with the term of being bound. 

How to Resolve a Boundary Dispute

If you are involved in a dispute about a boundary with a neighbour, this case this highlights the importance of any pre-litigation correspondence where you may have discussed arrangements with them. 

In you have had informal exchanges of correspondence with your neighbour, whether that this is emails or text messages, this case confirms that what is agreed in that correspondence can be legally binding. There is therefore no need for neighbours to enter into formal contracts, so parties must be cautious in the wording of any correspondence. 

However, as the decision in Crea v Camp demonstrates, casual words can carry legal weight and whilst a formal agreement is not strictly necessary, it is always advisable to instruct a specialist property lawyer at the earliest opportunity for advice about a boundary dispute and how to resolve it.

The first step is for the parties to instruct a surveyor, but it is important that both sides agree to be bound by the surveyor's decision. If they do not, the parties could find themselves involved in lengthy and expensive court proceedings, like the Creas and the Camps. 

If you need help with a dispute about a boundary, contact us to speak to one of our expert lawyers.