Lawyers often refer to adjoining or neighbouring land when drafting documents – as does parliament, when enacting legislation. Some draftsmen combine both these expressions together to create a single phrase. Others use one word, but not both, to convey their meaning.
How close must a property be in order to qualify as adjoining or neighbouring land? A reference to neighbouring property suggests that the land must be situated nearby. By contrast, a reference to adjoining land suggests that land must be physically touching to qualify.
Is it possible to construe the phrase “adjoining land” more widely to include property that is not contiguous, but that lies within the neighbourhood? In Hertsmere Borough Council v Lovat [2011] EWCA Civ 1185; [2011] PLSCS 250, the court had to consider whether a tenant was entitled to invoke the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold of a house. The landlord disputed the tenant’s claim on the ground that the premises were in a rural area that was excluded from the Act. The case turned on whether the rural land “adjoined” the tenant’s house.
The High Court referred to several reported authorities on the meaning of the word “adjoining” in different contexts and concluded that it meant “contiguous to”, “next to” or “coterminous with”. In other words, two parcels of land that have boundaries must be in contact with or meet each other at some point. Consequently, the judge upheld the tenant’s claim to acquire her freehold on the ground that the house did not adjoin the rural area because it was separated from it by its garden.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled that none of the decisions referred to have deprived the word “adjoining” of its potential for flexibility. Each case will turn on its own facts and it would be absurd to adopt the tenant’s interpretation of the legislation and uphold her argument that her house did not adjoin the rural land merely because it was surrounded by a garden.
The court commented that few words bear such an exact meaning that the reader can disregard the context and surrounding circumstances when interpreting them. Words that describe numbers can also be interpreted differently; for example, some trades do not interpret the word “dozen” as meaning “twelve”.
The words “adjoining”, “adjacent” and “contiguous” have similar meanings. However, none has exactly the same connotation in every case and each word can encompass “neighbouring” properties that are not in physical contact with each other. Therefore, although the word “adjoining” will commonly signify “touching”, its meaning must yield to the particular context in which it is used.
This case demonstrates that the courts do not always construe words and phrases solely by reference to a dictionary. Consequently, practitioners would be well advised to incorporate definitions and interpretation clauses in documents to clarify the meaning of important words and phrases and to define land by reference to colouring on a plan to ensure that provisions are enforceable.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
