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 overrule the description in the parcels, but the indications it provided were properly used to establish what land had been intended to be conveyed. In this case the land and parcels description was sufficient to say that the land had not been intended to be included in the relevant conveyance: ‘providing a plan did not conflict with explicit descriptions in the parcels, the fact that it was said to be ‘for identification only’ did not exclude it from consideration in order to solve problems left undecided by the explicit descriptions in the parcels.’
In fixing a boundary line, the first recourse is to the description of the property in the relevant conveyance. If the relevant conveyance, in normal circumstances the parcels clause, contains a verbal description of the property in question, sufficient to enable the disputed line to be ascertained; there is no need to refer to the conveyance plan. If, however, no definite conclusion can be reached from the parts or the whole of the description, the recitals and other parts of the deed can be considered for expressions of the intention of the parties. If these cannot be found, extrinsic evidence can, in some few cases, be used, for example to show to what property the description applies.
Buckley LJ explained Neilson v Poole: ‘There, Brooklands South is a specific description of a piece of land, the boundaries of which could be established by extrinsic evidence. If the plan was not to control the parcels, the plan could not have any relation to the boundaries of what was known as Brooklands South, those being matters which were implicit in the explicit description of the parcel concerned as ‘what was known as Brooklands South’; and the observation by Megarry J that words such as ‘for the purposes of identification only seemed to him to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where the land is situated, was I think an obiter observation on his part and not part of his decision at all, for he was not concerned merely with that phrase but with its use in conjunction with ‘more particularly delineated’.’
Bridge LJ said: ‘I cannot think that any of the judicial pronouncements on this subject to which we were referred in argument and which have been cited in the judgment of Buckley LJ were made in contemplation of a case where the boundary shown on a plan ‘for the purposes of identification only’ is the sole means by which the conveyance affords to indicate where that boundary is intended to be drawn. To refer to the plan in such a case in order to ascertain the boundary allows the plan merely to elucidate, not to control, the parcels. The ascertainment of boundaries being an integral part of the process of identifying the land conveyed, I cannot see why, as a matter of language, the qualifying words ‘for the purpose of identification only’ should inhibit the use of the plan for this purpose when no other means is available by which the relevant boundary can be ascertained.’
‘in so far as the plan does not conflict with the parcels, I can see no reason why, because it is described as being ‘for identification purposes only’ it should not be looked at to assist in understanding the description of the parcels. The process of identification is in fact the process of discovering what land was intended to pass under the conveyance, and that is the precise purpose the plan is said to serve. Accordingly, so long as the plan does not come into conflict with anything which is explicit in the description of the parcels, the fact that it is said to be ‘for the purposes of identification only’ does not appear to me to exclude it from consideration in solving problems which are left undecided by what is explicit in the description of the parcel’.
References: [1978] 1 WLR 1462
Links: lip
Judges: Buckley and Bridge LJJ and Sir David Cairns, Megarry J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Explained – Neilson v Poole ChD 1969 ([1969] 20 P and CR 909)
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 . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Yui Tong Man v Mahmood and Another CA 13-Dec-1996 ([1996] EWCA Civ 1218)
Application for leave to appeal. The parties occupied adjoining premises under leases. The defendant sought to appeal an oder that he remove a refrigeration plant erected behind his premises, but on the roof of the other premises.
Held: There . . - Cited – Druce v Druce CA 11-Feb-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 535)
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 . . - Cited – Sefton v Halliwell CA 2-May-2007 (, [2007] EWCA Civ 473)
Boundary dispute. . . - Cited – Stafford and Another v Lee and Another CA 10-Nov-1992 (Gazette 09-Dec-92, (1993) 65 P and CR 172, Times 16-Nov-92, , [1992] EWCA Civ 17, [1992] EG 136 (CS), [1992] NPC 142)
The plaintiff had built houses on his land and sought an easement of necessity over the neighbour’s drive for access for the houses under the rule in Pwllbach Colliery, saying an intended easement had been granted because it was known to the parties . . - Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 873)
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 – Taylor v Lambert and Another CA 18-Jan-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 3)
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 . . - Cited – Paton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . . - Cited – Paton and Another v Todd ChD 11-May-2012 (, [2012] EWHC 1248 (Ch))
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to land which was registered to the respondent neighbour.
Held: The claimant’s . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.177494 br>