Horn & Anor v Phillips & Anor

Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to construe a land transfer unless the relevant provisions are uncertain, contradictory or ambiguous. A court should identify a real ambiguity in the operative description and should not search for uncertainty in a document intended to guide later purchasers and neighbouring owners.

A plan which identifies ascertainable end points and gives a precise boundary measurement is not rendered ambiguous merely because another line on the plan appears to continue the boundary in a different direction. The specified measurement governed the boundary conveyed.

The respondents owned Lane End and the appellants owned the adjoining Ghyll View. The parties disputed the boundary between their respective paddocks.

The respondents acquired their paddock under a transfer dated 1 September 1998. The transfer described land edged red on an attached plan and specified a southern boundary measurement of 61 metres or thereabouts. The recorder held that the paddock boundary was a straight-line extension of the boundary between the houses, after admitting extrinsic surveying evidence.

On appeal, it was common ground that the recorder’s conclusion could stand only if that evidence was admissible. The central issue was whether the transfer and its plan contained a relevant ambiguity.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Jacob, with whom Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Brooke agreed, held that the transfer was not relevantly ambiguous. The recorder was therefore wrong to admit the extrinsic evidence and to determine the boundary by a straight-line extension from the houses.

2. The applicable principle, drawn from Scarfe v Adams [1981] 1 All ER 843, was that extrinsic evidence may assist construction only where the relevant provisions of the deed are uncertain, contradictory or ambiguous. The inquiry must address the particular boundary said to be unclear.

3. The plan and description identified the beginning and end of the 61-metre southern boundary. Those points could be found on the ground. The short line shown between the houses was outside the land transferred and did not create a conflict with the stated measurement. Imperfections elsewhere in the Ordnance Survey base did not make this boundary uncertain.

4. The court stressed that conveyancing documents are intended to be relied on by parties, later purchasers and surrounding owners. A court must admit extrinsic evidence where genuine ambiguity or meaninglessness exists, but should not be astute to find ambiguity where there is none.

5. The respondents received the land up to the stated 61-metre line. The court did not decide whether the appellants’ separate conveyance gave them land up to that line. The application to adduce fresh evidence was allowed, but the evidence did not assist the appeal. The appellants received their appeal costs, excluding the fresh-evidence application. For the proceedings below, there was no order for costs up to 21 days after 25 October 2002; thereafter the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants’ costs, including trial costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2003] EWCA Civ 1877: allowed the appellants’ appeal and reversed the recorder’s boundary determination.
• Brighton County Court — Mr Recorder Spon-Smith held that the paddock boundary was a straight-line extension of the boundary between the houses.