Parmar and Others v Upton: CA 22 Jul 2015

The parties disputed the application of the hedge and ditch rule in settling their boundary. The appellant wished to have reliance placed upon evidence only discovered after trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The Judge was, notwithstanding the fresh evidence, still correct in his application of the hedge and ditch rule as decisive of the boundary dispute before him.

Arden, Ryder, Briggs LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 795
England and Wales
CitedVowles v Miller 9-Jul-1810
Lawrence J said: ‘The rule about ditching is this. No man, making a ditch, can cut into his neighbour’s soil, but usually he cuts it to the very extremity of his own land: he is of course bound to throw the soil which he digs out, upon his own land; . .
CitedAlan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley CA 12-Nov-1997
Where adjoining fields are separated by a hedge and a ditch, who owns the ditch?
Held: The old presumption as to the location of a boundary based on the layout of hedges and ditches is irrelevant where the conveyance was by reference to an OS . .
CitedAlan 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550497