Taylor v Lambert & Anor

In construing a conveyance, the court reads the parcels clause as a whole and in the light of the physical circumstances existing at the transaction date. A plan stated to be for identification only does not prevail over express words, but it may assist in resolving uncertainty or understanding a general description. An area measurement may yield where it conflicts with the remaining description, the plan and the objectively apparent boundary. Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict clear terms, but it is admissible where the conveyance contains an internal inconsistency. The objective question is what a reasonable purchaser, inspecting the land with the conveyance and plan, would understand to have been conveyed.

The appeal concerned the boundary between The Moorings, owned by Gary Taylor, and Bridge Stores, owned by Terence and Michelle Lambert. Both properties had formed part of a common holding. A 1974 conveyance described Bridge Stores as containing 553.4 square yards or thereabouts and referred to an annexed plan for identification only.

The trial judge held that the boundary was a stone wall running south of the line suggested by the historic features used to calculate the stated area. Taylor argued that the measurement defined a more northerly boundary and that the judge had impermissibly relied on extrinsic evidence. The central issue was how the inconsistent parts of the conveyance were to be construed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the boundary lay along the stone wall between the properties.
2. A conveyance must be construed as a whole and in the light of the relevant circumstances existing on the ground at the date of the transaction. The need for certainty of title does not justify ignoring the physical features needed to identify the land conveyed. The objective inquiry was what a reasonable purchaser in the position of the intended purchasers would understand to be the yard, garden and conveniences adjoining and belonging to Bridge Stores.
3. The plan was expressly for identification only and could not override conflicting words in the parcels clause. It could nevertheless assist in understanding the verbal description where it did not conflict with an explicit term. Here the plan supported the general boundary line marked by the wall.
4. The measured area was internally inconsistent with the other words of the parcels clause, the plan and the physical features apparent at the time. It could not, standing alone, identify the irregular boundary proposed by Taylor. The historic walls and pig-pen structures explained how the measurement had been calculated, but were no longer present and did not define the transaction. The measurement therefore yielded to the objectively apparent new boundary.
5. Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to contradict a clear conveyance. Where, however, the conveyance contains an internal conflict, such evidence may be admitted to resolve it. The state of the land at the transaction date was part of the contextual construction process, rather than extrinsic evidence in the relevant sense.
6. The application to adduce the aerial photographs did not require a formal ruling because the respondents did not object once their provenance was established. The issues in the Respondents’ Notice were unnecessary to decide.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Doncaster County Court dismissed. The court upheld the order of His Honour Judge Moore made on 4 February 2011.