A plan described as being “for identification only” may help to interpret a conveyance, but the court will ignore any unexplained T marks on the plan
It is often said that, where a conveyance describes a plan as being “for identification only”, the description of the property in the conveyance will take precedence over the plan, although the plan may be used to identify the general location of the land described. By contrast, where land is described as being “more particularly delineated on the plan”, the plan will take precedence over the words used in the document.
The outcome of a boundary dispute in Avon Estates Ltd v Evans [2013] EWHC 1635 (Ch); [2013] PLSCS 144 turned on the effect of a 1955 conveyance, which described the land sold as being “for the purposes of identification only more particularly delineated on the plan attached hereto”. What is the position where a conveyance uses both these phrases?
The judge accepted that the use of the phrase “for identification only” might have the effect of subordinating a plan to the words in a conveyance, if they are inconsistent with each other. However, where they are not, and the plan adds to and clarifies the meaning of the words, it may be used to help interpret the document. The 1955 conveyance referred to parcels of land that formed part of a farm. The parcels clause and plan did not conflict with each other and it was impossible to identify the parts sold without referring to the plan, and to a schedule specifying the acreage and field numbers of the land being sold. Consequently, it was legitimate to refer to the plan as an aid to interpreting the conveyance.
The plan was based on an Ordnance Survey map and the red edging delineating the boundary between the properties retained and sold followed a line on the map that denoted a hedge. The court will usually presume that the legal boundary runs along the centre line of the hedge in such circumstances. However, the plan included T marks along the boundary, drawn on the side of the retained land.
T marks are often used to signify that landowners are responsible for maintaining boundaries with an inward facing T mark. Did this mean that the hedge belonged to the owners of the land on the side on which the T marks appeared? They certainly thought so, even though the 1955 conveyance made no reference to the T marks at all. The landowners argued that responsibility for maintenance should be equated with ownership – and, because the hedge was a growing hedge with an appreciable width, claimed ownership of an additional strip of land on the far side of the hedge to provide reasonable room for growth.
The judge rejected the landowners’ claim. He came to the conclusion that T marks on a plan have no special meaning unless the deed containing the plan explains why the T marks have been used (or there is some other corroborative evidence; for example, where replies to preliminary enquiries indicate that T marks signify ownership).
Therefore, the boundary ran through the centre of the hedge. The judge added that, had he concluded otherwise, he would, nonetheless, have rejected the landowner’s claim to any additional land because there is no general presumption or rule that the owner of a hedge owns additional space on the far side to accommodate growth.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
