The court heard an appeal against a judgment in a boundary dispute, the losing party having latterly dicovered aerial photopgraphs. There appeared to be a difference between the total area as specified in a 1974 conveyance off of part and the area naturally forming the boundary.
Judges:
Maurice Kay VP, Lloyd, Sullivan LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 3
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Horn and Another v Phillips and Another CA 18-Dec-2003
In a boundary dispute, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to contradict, in this, case the transfer with an annexed plan, which clearly showed the boundary as a straight line and even contained a precise measurement of distance. . .
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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450326