Turner v Turner

Where a conveyance describes land by reference to identified properties and the accompanying plan is for identification only, the land should be identified from the physical features on the ground, assisted by the plan. It should not be measured mechanically from the plan.

Connected conveyances forming one transaction should be construed together and in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The court should select the sensible natural boundary that best accords with the parties’ objective intention. That boundary may differ between floors and may create an overhang or flying freehold.

The claimants and defendants owned adjoining properties in a former farm complex. The dispute concerned ownership of a stable within a two-storey barn, following deeds of gift by the claimants’ mother in 1988 and 1989. The plans attached to the deeds inaccurately represented the buildings and appeared to divide the barn through the stable.

The Leicester County Court held that the stable belonged to the defendants, although it rectified the titles so that the yard belonged to the claimants. The claimants appealed on the issue of title to the stable. The central question was how the two conveyances should be construed in the light of the buildings as they existed when the transaction occurred.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the stable belonged to the claimants and ordered that the relevant title be corrected accordingly.

1. The first and second conveyances had to be read together as parts of a single transaction by which the owner transferred different parts of the complex to her son and daughter.
2. The descriptions of the properties as particular cottages did not, by themselves, determine whether adjoining outbuildings passed. The plans were expressly for identification only. They could not therefore be used to measure the land conveyed mechanically. The proper task was to identify the land on the ground, using the plans to assist in finding a natural boundary corresponding with the boundary depicted.
3. Two possible natural boundaries existed: the north wall of the stable at ground-floor level and the partition wall forming the southern end of the first-floor utility area. Dividing the stable between the parties would have produced a bizarre result for which neither party contended. The only sensible construction was that the first conveyance transferred the whole of the ground-floor stable and the first-floor area above it lying south of the partition.
4. The trial judge’s reasoning treated the plan’s rectangle as representing only the brick barn. It in fact included the workshop, whose southern wall lay north of the barn’s southern wall. That error undermined the conclusion that the stable was excluded from the first conveyance.
5. The resulting difference between the ground-floor and first-floor boundaries created an overhang or flying freehold. That construction was consistent with the physical position and the separate use of the first-floor and stable since the conveyances.

The order for costs below was set aside. The appeal was allowed with costs, subject to detailed assessment, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 1725, allowed the appeal, declared that the stable and the specified first-floor area had passed under the first conveyance, set aside the costs order below, and made consequential costs orders.
2. Leicester County Court: HHJ Bray ordered rectification of the relevant Land Registry titles, declared that the defendants owned the stable, dismissed the remaining claims, and ordered the claimants to pay 80% of the defendants’ assessed costs.