Chandler v Lanfear
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stanley Burnton |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 420 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2012/3164 |
| Date | 26 March 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 420
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM READING COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAMILTON QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir Stanley Burnton
Case No: B2/2012/3164
Mr Roger Smithers (instructed by Berrys Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
This is a very sad boundary dispute between neighbours. Boundary disputes are nearly always sad, because the fact that the parties have resorted to litigation means the relationships have totally broken down, which means that neither party can be comfortable in living with their neighbour. Even more sadly, the dispute concerns a very narrow margin of land between number 3 and number 5 Barton Road. Number 5 is the defendant/appellant's. The principal issue is relatively narrow. When this development was sold off, there was a line of what is referred to as path edging between number 3 and number 5 which marked the change of levels, so that one would expect that if the plan showed a boundary at about the line of the path edging, then the path edging would mark the boundary on the ground. Plans are notoriously approximate because of the scale; a line drawn on a conveyancing plan will cover several centimetres, sometimes many centimetres, on the ground. Therefore one has to construe the transfer by reference to the situation on the ground at the relevant time; that is to say, on the dates of the transfers to number 3 and number 5.
The judge held that the path edging did mark the boundary and had a kink at a spot where the claimant had built an extension, and the kink is shown clearly on document J1. Between the extension and what is referred to as the path edging is the principal area of dispute. What is said on behalf of the defendant appellant is that when one examines the plan, the plan identifies the fence along the boundary, and identifies it as being subject to a covenant to maintain, and the marking on the original transfer is inconsistent with the judge's finding, and there is no sufficient basis for the judge to have departed from the plan with that marking concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v Information Commissioner and another (Secretary of State for Justice and Others intervening) [SC]
...to in open court, absent good reasons to the contrary: see R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2013] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618. The proceedings in issue there were for extradition to the United States of two British citizens on corruption charges, t......