Durden v Aston

In a boundary dispute, a court applying the general boundaries rule must determine the true line by relating the filed plan to the physical features on the ground and considering the conveyancing documents and other probative circumstances. A filed plan is not conclusive of a general boundary and may be inconclusive without that contextual analysis. The court should address material evidence, including measurements, the stated area of land conveyed and surviving boundary features, and explain any rejection of it. An order correcting a filed plan may be possible without rectification where it merely maps a general boundary more accurately, but whether an alteration instead changes registered title is a question of fact and degree. That issue was not determined where the request to amend the plan was abandoned.

The claimant, owner of No. 68 Union Road, sought an injunction after the defendant, owner of No. 70, used the driveway and side passage of No. 68 to access his rear garden. The defendant claimed that the disputed land formed part of his registered title under a 1964 conveyance and sought declaratory and plan-amendment relief.

District Judge Ingram, in the Birmingham County Court, claim 8BM30543, held that the boundary ran from point E to point C. The defendant appealed. During the appeal he abandoned the wider boundary asserted at trial and accepted a line from point G to point C. The issues were whether the evidence supported that line and whether effective amendment of the filed plan required rectification of the register.

1. Appeal allowed. The order of District Judge Ingram was amended by substituting a straight-line boundary between points G and C.
2. The 1958 lease gave No. 70 a 16-foot frontage, leaving a five-foot strip between No. 70 and the established boundary of No. 68. There was no evidence that the five-foot strip had been formally conveyed to the owners of No. 70, but it had subsequently been included in the registered title. The 1964 conveyance described the additional land as containing 44 square yards, which was inconsistent with the claimant’s case that the conveyance transferred only the five-foot strip. The 1968 survey measured the frontage to point E as 21 feet and identified a further 2 feet 6 inches between points E and G. The surviving wall between those points had been physically integrated into the front garden of No. 70. The absence of a separate conveyance of the five-foot strip was a neutral factor, and adverse possession was a possible explanation for its inclusion within No. 70.
3. Under the general boundaries rule, the filed plan had to be related to the position on the ground. It was inconclusive as to the precise boundary and could not, by itself, establish the line. The evidence, taken as a whole, pointed to a boundary beginning at point G. The judge had failed to engage with the 1968 measurements, the physical evidence and the inconsistency between the conveyance and the alleged area of the strip. Her conclusion was therefore in conflict with the preponderance of the evidence.
4. The court observed that a filed plan could be amended without rectification where the purpose was only to provide a more accurate plan of a general boundary. Whether an amendment instead altered registered title and required rectification under Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 was, as explained in Drake v Fripp [2011] EWCA Civ 1279, a question of fact and degree. The issue was not determined because the defendant no longer sought amendment of the plan and accepted a declaration of the true boundary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2012] EWCA Civ 636, the appeal was allowed and the boundary was substituted as a straight line between points G and C.
2. Birmingham County Court (Chancery Business): District Judge Ingram held that the boundary ran between points E and C.