Riverside Boundary Dispute Focuses on Small-Scale Land Registry Plan

25th August 2022 By

Boundaries between properties are usually marked by a line on a small-scale Land Registry plan but they may be invisible on the ground. Precisely that difficulty was the root cause of a bitter dispute between owners of two riverside homes.

The owners could not agree as to the exact location of the boundary dividing their gardens, an issue that affected the extent of their desirable river frontages. The dividing line was not marked by a fence, wall or any other barrier, giving rise to disputes as to precisely where each of the owners should stop mowing the lawn, where they could walk or sit and where they could moor a boat.

With a view to resolving the issue once and for all, the owner of one of the homes applied under Section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002 for a definitive ruling on where the boundary lay. His neighbours contended for a boundary that would increase their river frontage by 6.68 metres.

Following a hearing, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found in favour of the applicant that his and his neighbours’ landholdings were correctly delineated on a Land Registry plan. That was not the end of the matter, however, as the 1:2,500-scale plan was insufficient to enable precise identification of the boundary on the ground. The FTT found that the boundary lay immediately to the north of a dashed line on the plan that was said to represent an underground drain.

Upholding the applicant’s challenge to the latter decision, the Upper Tribunal (UT) noted that the difficulty in part arose because the thickness of the dashed line on the plan denoted a much wider area on the ground. The FTT’s conclusions concerning the drain conflicted with the agreed evidence of expert witnesses and could not stand. The UT found that the true boundary ran from the intersecting walls of a churchyard to the northern edge of a riverside buttress.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...