Boundary dispute — Plan attached to conveyance delineating boundary line by T-marks — Various dimensions also marked on plan — Whether judge entitled to find T-marks determinative — Whether dimensions given insufficient weight — Appeal dismissed
The appellants and the respondent owned adjoining properties that, before the respective sales to the parties, had been in single ownership. The respondent had acquired his property, comprising a house and grounds, in 1968. The conveyance to the property included a plan that showed the intended boundaries of the land conveyed. Having described the property conveyed, the conveyance placed obligations upon the respondent, as purchaser, to repair and maintain “the fences along all the boundaries of the property hereby contracted to be sold” and “forever hereafter to maintain the hedges situated along the boundaries marked… on the plan annexed hereto”. The plan delineated the boundary line by T-marks that pointed towards the respondent’s side. Various dimensions were also marked, showing the distance from the house of various points on the boundary. The appellants had purchased their property in 1976.
In 2000, the first appellant destroyed a length of laurel hedge that ran between the two properties. This gave rise to a boundary dispute, as a result of which the respondent brought proceedings. He sought a declaration that he owned the hedge and other “boundary features”. The judge granted the declaration after finding that a hedge had existed along the disputed boundary around the time of the 1968 conveyance. The appellants appealed. They contended that the judge had erred in placing insufficient emphasis upon the dimensions noted on the plan, instead of treating the T-marks as being the determinative feature.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The judge had reached the right conclusion. It was agreed that the T-marks would normally be expected to indicate ownership of boundary features, and it was impossible to disregard the ordinary understanding of those marks. The natural implication was that they had been intended to represent the existing boundary features, and that those features belonged to the respondent. That implication was consistent with the judge’s finding that a hedge had existed along the disputed boundary. The precise purpose of the dimensions provided on the plan was uncertain, and they did not give a sufficiently clear indication so as to displace the natural implication of the T-marks.
Joseph Harper QC and Stephen Bickford-Smith (instructed by William A Merrick & Co) appeared for the appellants; Peter Crampin QC and Ulick Staunton (instructed by Robert C Seeckts, of Tunbridge Wells) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
