Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries and characteristics of the property. The Land Registry plan showed the boundary at the top of the bank. This matched a later boundary fence. Though the parties had orally agreed that the boundary should be at the foot of the bank, the precise location of the fence was identified, and a fence was erected in the agreed position. It would now be unconscionable for the Chadwicks to assert a claim to ownership of the bank.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Citations:
[2004] EWCH 1058 (Ch), [2004] All ER (D) 213
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley HL 24-Mar-1999
The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between a garden and a farm. The land was registered. There was a hedge and a ditch along the disputed boundary, it had been conceded in the Court of Appeal that a conveyance of land on the hedge . .
Cited – Partridge and others v Lawrence and others CA 8-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding as to the width of a right of way over their land as exercised by the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘The claimants now have the security that this court is . .
Cited – Eastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
Cited – Eastwood v Ashton HL 1915
Toi Identify Land, Court to Find True Meaning
A contract described the property and referred to a plan attached. The conveyance used four indications: the farm sold was said to be called by a given name, to contain 84 acres odd ‘or thereabouts’, and to be in the occupation of two different . .
Cited – Jackson v Bishop CA 1979
Where the definition of the parcels in a conveyance or transfer is not clear, then the court must have recourse to extrinsic evidence, and in particular to the physical features on the ground: ‘It seems to me that the question is one which must . .
Cited – Rogers and Another v Freeguard and Another CA 19-Oct-1998
The parties had drawn up and executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .
Cited – Scott v Martin 1987
When construing a land contract, the parties should not readily be assumed to have intended to act in breach of planning requirements . .
Cited – Lee v Barrey CA 1957
The registered proprietor of land argued that he had become owner of a larger plot of land after a transfer plan showed regular boundaries but the markings on the ground showed irregular ones: ‘as we are concerned with a general filed map or plan, . .
Cited – Hambrook v Fox CA 8-Feb-1993
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan used in a contract or transfer may be ignored. . .
Cited – Cutlan v Atwell CA 30-Nov-1994
The general boundaries rule does not mean that the plan on a transfer may be ignored. . .
Cited – Joyce v Rigolli CA 2-Feb-2004
An agreement to resolve a boundary dispute does not need to comply with formalities of the Act.
Sir Martin Nourse said: ‘The agreement between the parties served merely to demarcate the boundary between their respective properties. It had not . .
Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD 1981
The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Registered Land, Estoppel
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.196997