The parties disputed the extent of land conveyed. The conveyance described the plan as for identification purposes only but the decsription went on to say that it was ‘more particularly delineated on’.
Held: In the circumstances the plan would not be the controlling document. The judge had to do his best to make sense of the parcels clause.
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 535
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Druce v Druce CA 13-Aug-2002
. .
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 . .
Cited – Wigginton and Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd CA 7-Dec-1977
Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans.
Held: The plan had been included ‘for identification purposes only’, but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not . .
Cited – Moreton Cullimore v Routledge CA 11-Feb-1977
Where a property being conveyed was said to be more particularly described or delineated on a plan, the verbal description prevailed but this was only because the court treated the combined expressions as meaning no more than ‘for the purpose of . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181122
