As can be seen, border disputes are fraught with difficulties and, in most cases, court costs will overshadow the value of the country itself. In recent years, a more refined and less costly process has been called for to identify border disputes or, at the very least, to limit issues before they find their way to court. First, the parties may find that the judge prefers a line that is not presented by both parties: one that could “lose” both parties and perhaps be ordered to remove the invasive structures on both sides of the demarcation line declared. To determine the position of a border, it is the responsibility to determine the historical boundary at the time of the first transport (i.e. when the country was first divided). In interpreting this mediation, the Tribunal must comply with different principles. Ultimately, it must examine what a sensible person, who is in the position of the parties with the appropriate basic objective knowledge, would have understood. The subjective beliefs of the parties on the position of the border are inadmissible. You cannot use a border agreement to sell or give part of your country to your neighbour. As always, “no-prejudice ice-free costs,” compliance with pre-action protocols, and an early placement offer in a borderline case will always keep a game in a good position. The parties agree that the legal boundary between the land within their respective registered titles and the “B” mark in the attached plan is indicated by the red line between those points.
You and your neighbour can establish a “border agreement” to register it: once the paper-title limit is set, that should be the end of the matter. But this is often not the case. Those involved in border conflicts must be intelligent to the principles of unfavourable possession. This argument also applied to Section 2. Therefore, for a border agreement to apply to Section 2, the parties` objective must have been to conclude the agreement, namely that it would result in a sale or other transfer of part of the property. Section 2 would not apply solely because the contract would transfer a land interest if the parties did not intend to make such a transfer. The Property Boundaries (Dispute Settlement) Act attempts to change that. This is a private members` bill that has been slowly moving through Parliament since 2015. This bill provides for the mandatory provision of border dispute experts by an expert before the start of a legal process (a bit like the party wall, etc.).
Act 1996) and aims to provide a faster and less costly alternative to border dispute resolution. Unfortunately, the extension of Parliament in 2019 put an end to the passage of this law. Of course, the ease of understanding the country`s situation at the right time depends on the actual date of operational promotion. The limitation features of a new building a few years old will be easier to determine than those of a house built in the 19th century! But it really depends on a question of the quality and probative value of the evidence; it has no bearing on the applicable legal principles.