The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has set aside a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determining the exact line of the boundary of land under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 because the FTT had taken into account irrelevant considerations in reaching its decision in Christopher Giles Cattermole v Theresa Naomi Jordan and others [2022] UKUT 113 (LC).
The respondents owned property in Wallingford with a river frontage. In 2016 a large part of the garden was sold and subsequently acquired by the claimant. The issue for the FTT was where the boundary line between the two properties lay on the ground where there was no physical boundary because such an installation would breach a restrictive covenant. The western end of the boundary line was agreed as the intersection of the south and east walls of the churchyard. What was not agreed was whether the line to the river was at an angle from that point, as shown on the transfer plan, and as the claimant contended or, a straight line, as the respondents argued.
The respondents claimed that the transfer plan did not reflect the plan agreed before contracts for the sale of the land were exchanged, although all parties had signed the transfer plan before completion of the sale. Experts instructed by the parties agreed that the line extended to the northern edge of a buttress on the river wall, some 40mm north of the line contended for by the claimant.
In deciding where the boundary lies, the starting point is the deed that created it: if it is unambiguous, indicating by measurements the position on the ground, that is conclusive. Where there is ambiguity then extrinsic evidence may be considered including physical features on the ground Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873. However, collateral documents cannot be used to influence the construction of a document that has been entered on the register of title. Title plans depict general boundaries only: they do not purport to be entirely accurate and a line on a plan may be a metre thick on the ground.
The FTT agreed that the boundary was as depicted on the transfer plan but rejected the claimant’s analysis of where it lay on the ground because it left the respondents with “a rather odd parcel of land” which it was unlikely the parties intended since the £75,000 paid for the land “would appear to be a low price for the loss of a usable river frontage”. The FTT also interpreted a dashed line on the transfer plan as a drain running from the corner of the churchyard to an outlet in the river and fixed the boundary line by reference to it.
The price paid for the land was irrelevant. In any event, the FTT had heard no evidence on the value of the land and so the decision was unsound. There had also been no evidence concerning the positioning of any drain and such a finding was not open to the FTT. The UT directed the Land Registry to register the boundary in accordance with the experts’ agreed plan.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
