The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring plots of land.
Held: In the modern law the conveyance (parchment or not) is undoubtedly the starting point. Where information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it is permissible to have regard to extrinsic evidence, including, possibly, evidence of subsequent conduct, subject always to that evidence being of probative value in determining what the parties intended. But is only to the extent that it is unclear that extrinsic evidence may have a place. New evidence had become available and might be admitted under Ladd as relaxed by Bubb, but even so it was not sufficient to justify a disturbance of the decision, and the appeal failed.
Carnwath L said: ‘Watcham remains good law within the narrow limits of what it decided. In the context of a conveyance of land, where the information contained in the conveyance is unclear or ambiguous, it is permissible to have regard to extraneous evidence, including evidence of subsequent conduct, subject always to that evidence being of probative value in determining what the parties intended.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Waller VP, Lord Justic Carnwath and Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Citations:
Times 04-Dec-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1532, [2007] 1 EGLR 71, [2007] 1 P and CR 26, [2007] 2 EG 126
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Supported – Watcham v Attorney-General of the East Africa Protectorate PC 1919
The Watchams held land along the bank of the Nairobi River. It had been conveyed to them by the Crown by a certificate under the East African Land Regulations. The certificate gave the area transferred as ’66 3/4 acres, or thereabouts’, but included . .
Cited – Beale v Harvey CA 28-Nov-2003
Land had been divided into three lots on its development, but the site plan did not match the line of a fence actually erected.
Held: The court was not bound by the Watcham case, and would not follow it to allow reference to the later . .
Cited – Hillman and Hillman v Rogers and Rogers CA 19-Dec-1997
The parties disputed rights of way. The court considered the use of extrinsic evidence to construe the conveyance at issue. Robert Walker LJ: ‘It is to my mind clearly a case in which the court needs all the help it can get, and is entitled to make . .
Cited – Lord St Leonards v Ashburner 1869
(Sussex Spring Assizes) Lord St Leonards had bought some land and planted trees on what he thought was his side of the boundary. Some 20 years later Mr Ashburner bought the adjoining land and claimed that the trees were on his side of the boundary. . .
Cited – Clarke and Clarke v O’Keefe and O’Keefe CA 21-Oct-1997
The plaintiff had bought from the vendor a piece of land, bordering a field retained by him. The conveyance plan showed a vegetation boundary with a dotted line, but its precise position on the ground was unclear to them both. Accordingly, they went . .
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v Bubb and Another CA 25-Jul-2000
When considering an application for a re-hearing of a County Court action in order to consider and admit new evidence, the county court and High Court practice is now the same and the judge should consider the list of questions in Ladd v Marshall, . .
Cited – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Piper and Another v Wakeford and Another CA 17-Dec-2008
The parties disputed the boundary between their land.
Held: The judge had been entitled to rely on the evidence he had accepted, and had been entitled to find on the factual basis asserted. . .
Followed – Haycocks and Another v Neville and Another CA 18-Jan-2007
. .
Followed – Bradford and Another v James and others CA 18-Jul-2008
Boundary dispute. . .
Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .
Cited – Cameron v Boggiano and Another CA 21-Feb-2012
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring properties. . .
Cited – Bradley and Another v Heslin and Another ChD 9-Oct-2014
The parties were neighbours. One had a right of way over the other’s land. A gate existed over it. B wished to close the gate for security, but H wished it open in order to be able to drive through it without having to get out of his car, and so he . .
Cited – Cattermol v Jordan and Others UTLC 27-Apr-2022
LAND REGISTRATION – BOUNDARY DISPUTES – application for a determined boundary, section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 – evidence – decision made on a basis not put to the parties – weight to be given to expert evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.246337