Sefton v Halliwell

In fixing an uncertain boundary, the court must ascertain the parties’ common intention from the conveyance, its plan and the relevant surrounding evidence. The verbal description is considered first. If it does not identify the line, the plan and other parts of the instrument may be considered, followed, where appropriate, by limited extrinsic evidence. A Land Registry plan is not automatically conclusive, but it may be an important part of the factual matrix and may provide the exact line where the original plan is defective and later dealings proceeded on that basis. An appellate court will not interfere with a properly reasoned factual conclusion supported by the evidence merely because the judge did not address every argument or item of evidence expressly.

The dispute concerned a short boundary between Woodfield House and Woodfield Mews. The original 1982 conveyance plan was a poor-quality sketch that did not provide a clear or consistent line. On later registration, HM Land Registry produced a filed plan. The appellant acquired Woodfield House and later purchased and sold Woodfield Mews by documents referring to the registered title.

Mr Sefton sought injunctive relief when a fence was built on a line he disputed. The appellant counterclaimed for rectification. HHJ Maddocks declared that the boundary followed Mr Sefton’s line and dismissed the counterclaim. The appellant argued that the 1982 plan should prevail, that the filed plan contained an error, and that the judge had failed to consider relevant correspondence and expert evidence. The central issue was whether the judge had been entitled to prefer the filed plan.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge had correctly approached the task of ascertaining what land the parties had agreed and transferred.
2. The applicable approach was that described as the Wigginton principles, derived from Wigginton & Milner Ltd v Winster Engineering Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 1462. The court first considers the property description in the relevant conveyance. If that does not identify the boundary, it may consider the recitals and other parts of the deed, including the plan. Extrinsic evidence may be used in appropriate cases, for example to identify the property to which the description relates.
3. The 1982 plan was deficient, indistinct and incapable of producing one clear boundary. The judge was therefore entitled to consider the filed Land Registry plan and the surrounding evidence. The filed plan was not treated as conclusive merely because it was registered. It formed part of the factual matrix, and the judge was entitled to infer that it had been accepted by the appellant’s predecessor after the Land Registry survey. That acceptance was a fixed factor in the later transactions.
4. The alleged surveying or Ordnance Survey error did not prevent reliance on the filed plan. It was a matter for the trial judge to evaluate alongside the other evidence. The judge had more detailed material concerning the Land Registry survey than the expert had considered, and was entitled to conclude that the registered plan recorded the position accepted by the predecessor in title.
5. A trial judge is not required to rehearse every argument or piece of evidence. The judgment was full and well reasoned, and the omission of an express discussion of the alleged error did not show that it had been ignored or undermine the conclusion. The appeal was, in substance, an attempt to challenge factual findings supported by sound evidence.

Order: Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2007] EWCA Civ 473: appeal from the Manchester County Court dismissed.
• Manchester County Court: HHJ Maddocks declared that the disputed boundary followed the respondent’s line, marked E to R on the relevant plan, and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim for rectification of the register.