References: [1978] 1 WLR 1462
Coram: Buckley, Bridge LJJ
The court was asked to construe a conveyance where the plan attached was referred to using the phrase ‘for the purposes of identification only’ and also the phrase ‘more particularly delineated’.
Held: Where in a conveyance of land there is an inconsistency between the verbal description and the plan, the plan must be disregarded.
Buckley LJ said: ‘in so far as the plan does not conflict with the parcels, I can see no reason why, because it is described as being ‘for identification purposes only’ it should not be looked at to assist in understanding the description of the parcels. The process of identification is in fact the process of discovering what land was intended to pass under the conveyance, and that is the precise purpose the plan is said to serve. Accordingly, so long as the plan does not come into conflict with anything which is explicit in the description of the parcels, the fact that it is said to be ‘for the purposes of identification only’ does not appear to me to exclude it from consideration in solving problems which are left undecided by what is explicit in the description of the parcel’.
Bridge LJ said: ‘I cannot think that any of the judicial pronouncements on this subject to which we were referred in argument and which have been cited in the judgment of Buckley LJ were made in contemplation of a case where the boundary shown on a plan ‘for the purposes of identification only’ is the sole means by which the conveyance affords to indicate where that boundary is intended to be drawn. To refer to the plan in such a case in order to ascertain the boundary allows the plan merely to elucidate, not to control, the parcels. The ascertainment of boundaries being an integral part of the process of identifying the land conveyed, I cannot see why, as a matter of language, the qualifying words ‘for the purpose of identification only’ should inhibit the use of the plan for this purpose when no other means is available by which the relevant boundary can be ascertained.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Paton and Another -v- Todd ChD (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to, but which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . .
