The Appeal Court is to rule on the status of plans attached to a conveyance.
Judgment was reserved last week in a case that centres on a dispute between neighbours over the boundary line between two properties at Brimscombe, Gloucestershire.
Douglas Woolls sought a declaration at Gloucester County Court in April 1997 that, when he conveyed part of his land to his neighbours, he retained a right of way over a path running between the properties. He claims that his neighbours have encroached on part of the land that he retained.
The judge, Mr Recorder Belbin, dismissed his application.
In the Appeal Court, Woolls’ counsel, Charles Goodall, argued that the judge had given insufficient weight to the plan attached to the conveyance and said that the judge had erred in ruling that it was “unclear and imprecise”.
He argued that the judge gave the plan too low a status, describing it as “for identification only”. According to Goodall, the judge should not have allowed extrinsic evidence to be given, but should have decided the boundary from the conveyance and the plan.
John Virgo, counsel for the neighbours, argued that where the boundaries of a property being conveyed had been defined and agreed prior to the conveyance, it was the agreement that should be used to define the meaning of the property involved. This, he said, could not be contradicted by a plan that was expressed to be for identification purposes only.
The court is expected to deliver judgment later this month.
Woolls v Powling, Court of Appeal (Hirst LJ and Cazalet J), November 26 1998.
Charles Goodall (instructed by Luttons Dunford, of Gloucester) appeared for the appellant; John Virgo (instructed byWinterbothams, of Stroud) appeared for the respondents.
PLS News 01/12/98