A plan attached to a conveyance for identification purposes only’ could still be used, when clear, to determine just where the boundary lay. If the transfer is clear, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to clarify the precise boundary.
The combined expressions used in a conveyance to import a plan ‘for identification purposes only’ and ‘more particularly identified on’ were used. The judge had admitted extrinsic evidence, that is oral evidence, as to discussions between the parties regarding the boundary wall prior to the conveyance.
Held: the appeal was allowed. The plan did not conflict with the description of the property in the conveyance and so the judge had been in error in admitting this extrinsic evidence.
Citations:
Times 09-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 751
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Grigsby v Melville CA 6-Jul-1973
The seller had owned two adjoing properties. He sold one off to the plaintiff, describing it in the conveyance as ‘all that dwellinghouse’. A cellar under the part sold off had access only from the retained property, but contained supports for the . .
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 . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90598
