Konstantinidis v Townsend

Where a registered title plan is subject to the general boundaries rule and is not precise, the conveyed boundary must be determined by construing the conveyance and register in the light of physical features existing when the land was conveyed. Evidence of a later owner’s beliefs, motives or conduct cannot alter the boundary fixed by that construction. A later order fixing one boundary point must be given effect. The court may identify the remaining boundary by joining that point to another point established by contemporaneous physical evidence. Later construction does not change the boundary unless a claim such as adverse possession or estoppel is made and established.

The claimant owned No 6 Further Granary Cottages and the defendant owned adjoining land. The relevant 1990 conveyance was not produced. The claimant’s registered title referred to a filed plan, which did not precisely define the boundaries. A line of posts and chain existed in 1990, and the defendant later built a wall to its east.

A 1998 county court order fixed the northern boundary by reference to a plan. The trial judge nevertheless declared the eastern boundary to follow the western face of the defendant’s wall and dismissed his counterclaim. The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to construe the conveyance and registered title by reference to the circumstances existing in 1990. The central issue was the proper location of the eastern boundary.

1. Appeal allowed. The trial order was set aside. The boundary was declared to be a straight line from point X, fixed by the 1998 order, to point Y, fixed by the intersection of the 1990 line of posts and chain with the 1988 wall.
2. The trial judge adopted an erroneous approach. He did not address the conveyance to Mr Longstaff, the property register or the filed plan, and placed undue weight on witnesses’ opinions and Mr Townsend’s conduct. Those matters were irrelevant to the boundary if the proper construction of the title documents placed the boundary elsewhere.
3. The property register was the best available evidence of what had been conveyed because it formed the basis of the first registration and would have been supported by particulars sufficient to identify the land under Land Registration Rules 1925, rule 20, following the prescribed inquiries under rules 25 to 35. The filed plan remained subject to the general boundaries rule in rule 278, so physical features existing in 1990 had to be considered.
4. The accepted evidence established that the line of posts and chain was the only physical feature capable of delineating the eastern boundary in 1990. It therefore marked the southern point, point Y. The 1998 order fixed the northern point, point X, at the western face of the northern pillar of the 1994 wall. The proposed parallel measurement from the later wall was rejected because it assumed a precise rectangle and parallel boundaries, contrary to the general boundaries rule and the 1998 order.
5. The 1994 wall could have affected title only through a claim based on adverse possession or estoppel. No such claim was made. The strip west of the wall therefore remained the defendant’s property. Costs were ordered as stated in the formal order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2003] EWCA Civ 538 allowed the appeal, set aside the county court order and declared the boundary to be a straight line from point X to point Y.
• Norwich County Court: His Honour Judge Barham declared the eastern boundary to lie along the western face of the defendant’s wall and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim. No citation was stated in the judgment.