The crucial provision in a conveyance or transfer is the clause that describes the land conveyed or transferred. However, a recent Court of Appeal decision reminds us that the entire content of a conveyance or transfer, and any attached plans, will be relevant in the event of uncertainty over the extent of the land transferred.
The importance that the courts attach to plans annexed to conveyances or transfers will depend upon the words that are used to refer to them. A verbal description of the property will take precedence over a plan that is used “for the purposes of identification only” because this time-honoured phrase indicates that the plan does not identify the precise boundaries of the land. However, if land is described as being “more particularly delineated” on the plan attached to a conveyance or transfer, the plan will prevail.
In Strachey v Ramage [2008] EWCA Civ 384; [2008] PLSCS 113, the court had to deal with a conveyance of part that described the land sold by reference to a plan that was for “identification only”. Unfortunately, the red edging on the plan did not coincide with the boundary features on the ground, or with the line of a new fence that was erected a few weeks before the conveyance.
The Court of Appeal relied upon a clause in the conveyance that proclaimed the ownership of the fence and included covenants for its maintenance and repair. The court ruled that the clause took precedence over the plan because it would have been absurd for the sellers to retain ownership of fencing that fell within an area of land that was being sold. In addition, it would have been impossible for the sellers to comply with their covenants to repair the fence without the access that would enable them to do so.
The position of the new boundary fence was relevant for another reason. Where a conveyance is ambiguous or unclear, the courts can refer to extrinsic evidence as an aid to determining a boundary line. In this case, the verbal description of the property was inadequate and the plan was not definitive.
The boundaries shown on the title plan drawn up by the Land Registry did not follow the line of the fence, but the Court of Appeal ruled that this did not mean that the registered proprietor owned more land than he had bought. Under “the general boundaries rule” operated by the Registry, lines drawn on title plans are not definitive (unless they have been formally fixed), and do not define legal boundaries with precision.
The court followed the decision in Derbyshire County Council v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 (Ch); [2007] 3 EGLR 44; [2007] 45 EG 164 and ruled that redrawing the boundary on the title plan would not affect the proprietor’s title; it would merely substitute one general boundary for another and produce a different general boundary in a more accurate position. Consequently, the court directed the Registry to alter the title plan to reflect its ruling, despite objections from the registered proprietor of the land.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
