Mr White subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. White argued that the boundary agreement did not bind successors in title to the land. In the alternative, if it did bind successors in title, then it should only do so if they had actual knowledge of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision by confirming that the boundary demarcation agreement was binding on both parties and White had trespassed onto the Alders’ land. The court relied on a previous decision in <em>Neilson v Poole </em>which identified two types of boundary agreement:-
<ul>
 	<li>Firstly, a boundary agreement which moves the properties’ boundaries and transfers legal title to parts of land from one neighbour to another. The formalities for a conveyance of land must be met in such an agreement as it transfers legal interests in land.</li>
 	<li>Secondly, a boundary “demarcation” agreement which gives clarity when the boundary is unclear. Such an agreement decides where the location of the boundary is always presumed to have been, as conveyed by the root conveyance. Small areas of land may be exchanged, but no formalities are required for a binding agreement.</li>
</ul>
This case dealt with the second type of boundary demarcation agreement which was a “<em>a delineation of the property transferred or conveyed and is so for all purposes”</em>. It was binding on White and the Alders as successors in title to the land, irrespective of knowledge of the agreement.

As a legal agreement that established the physical extent of the parties’ legal interests, the determined boundary is presumed always to have been in that location. There was, therefore, no requirement for prior knowledge of the boundary agreement.