Hunt v Weston Homes Plc

In determining an uncertain registered-land boundary, the court must assess the conveyancing documents and plans as a whole, giving appropriate weight to reliable contemporary evidence of the parties’ intended boundary. General Land Registry plans are insufficiently precise for boundary demarcation where they merely identify land under the general-boundaries system. A later plan prepared for a neighbouring lease may nevertheless provide the best contemporary evidence of the intended boundary, even where the owner of the adjoining land was not a party to it. The court may project an agreed straight boundary across adjoining plots where the original layout shows parallel plots in succession.

The claimant owned 45 Millharbour and the defendant owned 41 Millharbour, with its associated ownership of 43 Millharbour. The defendant began redevelopment works and the claimant alleged that the hoarding and foundations encroached on 45 Millharbour.

The parties agreed that the southern boundary of 41 and 43 was the northern boundary of 45, but disputed its precise position. The issue was tried as a preliminary issue. The court considered the original development documents, leases, transfer plans, Land Registry plans, a later plan relating to 43 Millharbour, expert evidence and physical features including a gravel path and boundary fence.

1. Preliminary issue determined. The common boundary between 45 Millharbour and 41 Millharbour was along line A-B on the plan attached to the particulars of claim.
2. The conveyances and leases were intended to convey the plots created by the development scheme. The plots were intended to be rectangular and arranged in succession. The freehold transfers conveyed no greater or lesser area than the relevant leases.
3. The later plan numbered 4.70, prepared in connection with 43 Millharbour, was the key contemporary evidence. It precisely measured the southern boundary of 43 and showed the boundary following the southern line of the gravel path. Its terms and the surrounding layout were inconsistent with the defendant’s case that a strip of land lay between 43 and 45.
4. The claimant was entitled to rely on plan 4.70 as evidence of the intended boundary even though neither the claimant nor his predecessors had been parties to it. The plan was not relied on by way of estoppel. It was evidence of the boundary intended by the original developer and the subsequent disposition of the land.
5. The experts agreed that the boundaries were intended to be straight lines. Projecting the boundary shown on plan 4.70 along the southern boundary of 41 produced the line contended for by the claimant.
6. The general-boundaries Land Registry plans were not sufficiently precise for determining the disputed boundary. The court preferred the claimant’s expert evidence where the experts disagreed. The hoarding did not follow the true boundary.