The parties were in a boundary dispute. The court warned of the danger of deciding where a boundary is by simply relying on the physical appearance of the ground features to the neglect or exclusion of the title documents. The Recorder had found that the boundary ran alongside a low wall.
Held: In so finding, he had wrongly discarded the transfer plan completely because of its lack of clarity and had construed: ‘the Transfer by looking at the physical features on the ground as at the date of the Transfer without the plan in his hand. A reasonable layman without the plan no doubt would have concluded as the Recorder did that the low wall was the boundary but he would have been engaged in the exercise of construction without one of the most important pieces of evidence.’
Black LJ, with whom Sir David Keene and Longmore LJ agreed, added: ‘I differ from the Recorder reluctantly as he went about his task with conspicuous care and he had the great advantage of being able to visit the site itself. I have not found the issues here at all easy to determine as the sight of an obvious boundary structure, such as the low wall, in place at the time of the Transfer, naturally gives rise to the assumption that that is indeed the boundary. However, as Beale v.Harvey shows, that natural assumption is not the end of the matter and I would allow the appeal. ‘
Longmore, Black LJJ, Sir D Keene
[2011] EWCA Civ 1612
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scarfe v Adams CA 1981
Transfer deeds for a sale of land did not define the boundary but referred to a plan which was held to be too small to show a precise boundary. The only other element of the parcels clause was that it was land adjoining Pyle Manor and that it was . .
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 by:
Cited – Cameron v Boggiano and Another CA 21-Feb-2012
The parties disputed the boundary between their neighbouring properties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450105
