Hudson Industrial Services Ltd v Wood & Ors

A plan attached to a conveyance for identification purposes normally yields to a sufficiently precise verbal description. Where the verbal description merely states an approximate acreage and does not identify the land precisely, the plan remains relevant to identification. The identified land is nevertheless subject to physical features on the ground that contradict the plan when determining precise boundaries.

An objection to registration under the Land Registration Act 2002 is made without reasonable cause where it rests on unreliable evidence, an untenable construction of the conveyance and a misconceived understanding of registration requirements. Damages still require proof of recoverable loss. The court will not award damages based on speculation where the claimant has failed to prove both its gross loss and the expenditure saved by not carrying out planned works.

Hudson Industrial Services Ltd claimed the removal of objections preventing first registration of land at Buildwas, Shropshire, transferred under a 1995 deed of gift. The defendants included the original transferors and adjoining owners who had objected to registration.

The dispute concerned whether the plan attached to the deed had been substituted and how the description of approximately one acre should be construed against a plan depicting about three and a quarter acres. Hudson also claimed damages against the adjoining owners under section 77(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2002 for making and maintaining objections without reasonable cause.

The central issues were the proper construction of the deed, the effect of physical features on the ground, whether the objections lacked reasonable cause, and whether Hudson had proved recoverable loss.

1. The court found it more likely than not that the plan attached to the April 1995 deed was the original plan. There was no solid evidential foundation for concluding that it had been substituted.

2. A plan stated to be for identification purposes only must give way to a specific verbal description identifying the land with adequate precision. That principle was explained in Strackey v Ramarsh [2008] E.N.C.R. p8, with reference also to Withington & Milner Limited v Winster Engineering Limited [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1462 and Spall v Owen [1982] 44 P. & C.R. 36.

3. Here, however, the words approximately one acre or thereabouts did not identify a particular area with precision. The plan therefore retained its identification function. The land conveyed was the area edged red, approximately three and a quarter acres. Physical features on the ground prevailed over the delineation where they contradicted the plan, so that a small boundary sliver belonged to the Morgans.

4. The Morgans’ objections were made and pursued without reasonable cause for the purposes of section 77(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 2002. Their reliance on unreliable statements, the alleged plan substitution, the construction limiting the transfer to the yard and driveway, and the supposed significance of limited registration was unjustified. Improper motive was unnecessary; the statutory test was reasonable cause.

5. Hudson proved that the objections had caused some additional expense, including additional rent and vehicle movements. It did not, however, prove recoverable loss. The vehicle schedule was unreliable because primary records had been destroyed, and Hudson had not established that the expense incurred exceeded the expenditure saved by not carrying out the proposed works. The damages claim was therefore dismissed.

6. Hudson succeeded in clearing the objections to title. The defendants were ordered to pay Hudson’s costs, subject to exclusion of costs referable to the damages claim and the costs judge’s assessment of the consequences of the disclosure failures.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.