Bradford & Anor v James and Ors [electronic resource]
Bradford & Anor v James and Ors [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 837, 18 July 2008. A plan annexed to a conveyance was unclear: extrinsic evidence was admissible to clarify and construe the conveyance and ascertain the intentions of the parties involved. Relevant to surveyors as the judge commented on the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution as the preferred option for managing such disputes. Appellants (B) appealled against a decision that a cobbled strip outside the front door of their property belonged to respondents (J), stating that there was a lack of clarity in the plans and conveyancing for the properties involved. Held: There was a lack of clarity in a 1976 conveyance plan and extrinsic evidence was admissible to show the intents of the parties in relation to the land. Existing conversion plans for B's property would seem to indicate that the land fell within their boundary and that W (the previous owners of J's farm) had not objected to this when original plans for a conversion of B's property had been submitted.
BRADFORD & ANOR V JAMES & ORS
ALAN WIBBERLEY BUILDING LTD V INSLEY
ALI V LANE
HAYCOCKS AND ANOTHER V NEVILLE AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 837, 18 July 2008. A plan annexed to a conveyance was unclear: extrinsic evidence was admissible to clarify and construe the conveyance and ascertain the intentions of the parties involved. Relevant to surveyors as the judge commented on the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution as the preferred option for managing such disputes. Appellants (B) appealled against a decision that a cobbled strip outside the front door of their property belonged to respondents (J), stating that there was a lack of clarity in the plans and conveyancing for the properties involved. Held: There was a lack of clarity in a 1976 conveyance plan and extrinsic evidence was admissible to show the intents of the parties in relation to the land. Existing conversion plans for B's property would seem to indicate that the land fell within their boundary and that W (the previous owners of J's farm) had not objected to this when original plans for a conversion of B's property had been submitted.
BRADFORD & ANOR V JAMES & ORS
ALAN WIBBERLEY BUILDING LTD V INSLEY
ALI V LANE
HAYCOCKS AND ANOTHER V NEVILLE AND ANOTHER
England and Wales--1543-