Between Private Ordering and Public Regulation: Reassessing the Legal and Governance Framework for Boundary Fences in Malaysia

Boundary fences are central to neighbour relations in Malaysia, yet they exist within a fragmented and largely unregulated legal framework. The National Land Code 1965 is silent on fence-related obligations, and municipal by-laws regulate only technical aspects, leaving substantive responsibilities undefined. This gap—combined with institutional fragmentation and reliance on private negotiation—produces frequent disputes and inconsistent outcomes. Using Property Rights Theory, Neighbour Law, and Regulatory Governance Theory, this article analyses Malaysia’s legal deficiencies and compares them with established frameworks in Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The comparative insights illustrate how structured procedures, cost-sharing rules, and accessible tribunals reduce conflict. The article proposes a multi-tiered reform model, including a Boundary Fences Act, harmonised national standards, notice-and-consent mechanisms, and tribunal-based dispute resolution. A coherent regulatory framework is essential for promoting legal certainty, neighbour harmony, and effective governance in Malaysia’s urban residential environment.

Boundary fences; neighbour disputes; property law; local authorities

1. Abdul Aziz, A. (2014). Local government and urban governance in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Public Administration, 11(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ainul Jaria Maidin. (2012). Challenges to the principles of the Torrens system in meeting global challenges and the evolution of technology. Law Review, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2012). Understanding regulation: Theory, strategy, and practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A. (2017). Personalizing negligence law. New York University Law Review, 91(3), 627–688. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Blomley, N. (2005). Flowers in the bathtub: Boundary crossings at the public–private divide. Geoforum, 36(3), 281–296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bradbrook, A. J., MacCallum, S., & Moore, A. (2011). Australian real property law (5th ed.). Lawbook Co. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Edgeworth, B., Rossiter, C., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Sackville & Neave: Property law (11th ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order without law: How neighbors settle disputes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Glover, J. (2011). The law of party walls and party structures (4th ed.). Jordans. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hollington, R. (2017). The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: A practical guide. RICS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lee, P. (2020). Tort law in Malaysia (2nd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). The problem-solving capacity of the modern state: Governance challenges and administrative capacities. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Low, S. (2003). Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Morgan, J. (2010). Private nuisance and responsibility for the environment. Cambridge Law Journal, 69(1), 144–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Multi-level governance and democracy: A Faustian bargain? In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 131–144). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sihombing, J. (2005). National Land Code: Commentary (Vols. 1–3). LexisNexis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Teo, K. S., & Khaw, L. T. (2012). Land law in Malaysia: Cases and commentary (3rd ed.). LexisNexis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Toomey, E. (2017). Property law in New Zealand (3rd ed.). Thomson Reuters. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.