An application for first registration of title to a lane and its adjacent banks as part of a wider dispute between neighbours has failed in Andrew Riddell Dunlop v Rostislav Rostislavitch Romanoff Case No: Ref 2019/1057 First-tier Tribunal of the Property Chamber, Land Registration, a decision which highlights the dangers of litigation as a battle tactic.
The applicant owned Lunsford Farm in Pett, East Sussex. The respondent was his neighbour, the owner of Westcott. In January 2019, the respondent obtained planning permission for the redevelopment of Westcott and implemented works including the reconstruction of a steep vehicular driveway from the lane which provided access to both properties. The applicant, upset by the works, generated a series of posts on Facebook which became the subject of defamation proceedings by the respondent.
The applicant then sought to register title to the lane as a means of preventing the respondent from using the driveway as a vehicular access to Westcott. The application was made on two bases: that on a true construction of a conveyance of June 1918 the lane was included in land then conveyed to his grandfather; and that he had acquired title by a period in excess of 12 years’ adverse possession prior to his application under the Limitation Act 1980.
The lane formed part of several thousand acres of land, including Lunsford Farm, which was the subject of a contract for sale on 24 September 2017. The conveyance of 6 June 1918, referred to an acreage of land “or thereabouts” including the plot number of the lane but the land to be conveyed was identified as “more particularly delineated on the plan…coloured pink” which clearly excluded the lane.
The court, following authorities that a plan expressed to be definitive will normally take precedence over a verbal description, decided that the clarity of the plan prevailed over the wording of the conveyance (Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Freemont Ltd [2013] EWHC 1733 (Ch)).
However, even if the applicant had succeeded on the construction issue, he would not have achieved his objective as a conveyance of Westcott, also concluded on 6 June 1918, granted to the purchaser full rights of access over the lane for all purposes with or without vehicles. Additionally, the court would not have been in a position to make a binding determination of the precise location of the boundary line in relation to either the banks or an apron of land at the western end of the lane. These were precise boundary issues for determination under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
The adverse possession claim, also failed. The acts relied upon by the applicant did not amount to factual possession of the land with a manifested intention to possess it for over 12 years prior to the application. There were no fixed or permanent gates at the road end of the lane until 2013. Closure of the lane to move or treat animals was for short or limited periods only. Gates installed in 2013 permitted access. Acts of maintenance were no more than the actions of any user of a right of way.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
