Roy Stephen Farrow v Duncan Boag
[2023] UKUT 167 (LC)
Andrew Riddell Dunlop v Rostislav Rostislavavitch Romanoff
29 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 200 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A family fought over a piece of land based on an old document. The document had a map and a written description that didn't match. The judge looked at all the evidence, including other related documents, and decided the written part of the document meant the family got the land.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Dunlop applied to be registered as proprietor of unregistered land (part of a lane) adjoining his Lunsford Farm.
- •Mr. Romanoff, owner of neighboring Westcott, objected.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) cancelled Mr. Dunlop's application.
- •Mr. Dunlop appealed, arguing the land was conveyed to his grandfather in 1918.
- •The 1918 conveyance included a plan and a schedule of acreages, with discrepancies between the plan's depiction and the textual description.
- •The dispute centers on whether the 1918 conveyance included the disputed land, despite its exclusion from the plan's colored area.
Legal Principles
Contract construction considers the contract as a whole, weighing context based on drafting formality.
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Limited [2017] UKSC 24
In conveyance construction, evidence of land's physical condition and facts available to parties is admissible for contextual interpretation.
Pennock v Hodgson [2010] EWCA Civ 873
Evidence of prior negotiations and subjective intent is inadmissible in contract construction.
Investors Compensation Scheme Limited v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896
If a conveyance plan is stated to 'more particularly delineate' the land, it generally prevails over unclear or inconsistent wording.
Eastwood v Ashton [1915] AC 900
A plan will normally take precedence over verbal descriptions unless it's unclear where the boundary lies.
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Freemont Limited [2013] EWHC 1733 (Ch)
Outcomes
The appeal succeeds.
The Upper Tribunal found the 1918 conveyance, construed as a whole with extrinsic evidence (including subsequent conveyances), conveyed the application land. The discrepancy between plan and text wasn't sufficient to disregard the clear textual description, and extrinsic evidence strongly supported the inclusion of the land.
Similar Cases
Brian Larman v The Estate of Gerald Ernest Linzell & Ors
[2024] UKUT 57 (LC)
Kenneth Rowlands & Anor v Gregory Bishop & Anor
[2023] UKUT 102 (LC)
Charles Edward Porter and another v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased) (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2023] UKPC 11
Anthony Charles Clapham & Ors v Dee Narga
[2023] EWHC 3337 (Ch)