The parties disputed the line of the boundary between their neighbouring properties.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the conveyance in respect of each property refers to the wall between the properties as being a division or dividing wall. That phrase clearly, to my mind, indicates an intention that the wall should demarcate the boundaries between the properties and were it not so, as Mr Such rightly submitted, nobody, in particular a purchaser, would be in a position to know where the true boundary between these two properties lay. The plans are not sufficiently detailed to demarcate the boundaries with any exactitude, with the result that the position of the wall, situated very close to the old fence, was the only way in which a purchaser could know what he was buying.’
Judges:
Swinton Thomas, Tuckey LJJ
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 1514, [1999] 3 All ER 646, [2000] 1 WLR 347
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969
Significance of Boundary agreements
The parties, neighbours, disputed the boundary between their gardens. In a conveyance of land where the plan is stated to be for identification purposes only, the effect of those words: ‘Seems . . to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where . .
Cited – Watson v Gray 1879
. .
Cited by:
Mentioned – Flack v Lanzante CA 28-Aug-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal. Boundary dispute. Boundary agreement shown – leave refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146429
