Andrew Riddell Dunlop v Rostislav Rostislavavitch Romanoff
[2023] UKUT 200 (LC)
Roy Stephen Farrow v Duncan Boag
20 July 2023
[2023] UKUT 167 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Two neighbors fought over their property line. A judge initially sided with one neighbor, but a higher court ruled there wasn't enough clear evidence to decide where the line actually is, so the original decision was cancelled.
Key Facts
- •Boundary dispute between Mr. Farrow (appellant) and Mr. Boag (respondent) regarding land in Sheringham, Norfolk.
- •Mr. Boag applied to HM Land Registry for boundary determination under section 60, Land Registration Act 2002.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favor of Mr. Boag's application.
- •Mr. Farrow appealed the FTT's decision.
- •The disputed boundary originated from a 1913 Indenture.
- •The 1913 Indenture plan was small, diagrammatic, and not to scale.
- •Lack of clear physical evidence to precisely define the boundary in 1913.
- •The FTT relied on the 1913 Indenture plan and a measurement of 'about 127 feet' to determine the boundary.
- •Mr. Farrow argued the available evidence was insufficient to establish the boundary with the required precision.
Legal Principles
Boundaries shown on the register are general boundaries unless determined under section 60 of the 2002 Act.
Land Registration Act 2002, section 60(1)-(2)
To determine a boundary under section 60, a plan showing the exact line and evidence to establish it are required.
Land Registration Rules 2003, rules 118-122
The plan must identify start, end, turning points, and be accurate to +/- 10mm (Land Registry guidance).
Land Registry Practice Guide 40, supplement 4, paragraph 4.4
In boundary disputes, courts strive for a decisive result but must rely on admissible evidence.
Neilson v Poole [1969] 20 P & CR 909
A boundary cannot be determined if the evidence doesn't establish its location with the required accuracy; adverse possession may be relevant.
Murdoch v Amesbury [2016] UKUT 3 (TCC)
Extraneous evidence, including subsequent conduct, is permissible in interpreting unclear conveyances, provided it has probative value.
Ali v Lane [2006] EWCA Civ 1532
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Insufficient evidence to determine the exact boundary location with the required precision. The 1913 Indenture plan lacked sufficient detail and precision, and the evidence presented did not establish the boundary's exact line.
Chief Land Registrar to delete entries giving effect to the FTT's decision.
The FTT's determination was based on insufficient evidence, rendering the boundary determination invalid.