Charlton v Forrest
Language: English Publication details: [2024] EWHC 1014 (Ch), Chancery Division, 3 May 2024Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: On 3 May 2024, Mr Justice Zacaroli delivered a judgment in a dispute to determine the position of a disputed boundary where the original transfers cannot be produced, examining the importance of aerial photographs and Ordnance Survey plans in the absence of a conveyance. Defendants trade as Castleton Residential Park. The claimants are the registered proprietors of freehold land and a house at Ty Chwarel. The catalyst for this dispute was the removal by the defendants of a substantial amount of trees, shrubs and other growth on, or towards the eastern side of, the boundary. Despite two surveyors opinions, the judge deemed they had no specialised knowledge, the judge concluded they were not bound to accept their conclusion, but must analyse the evidence in order to decide where the boundary lies. This case shows the difficulties associated with identifying a precise boundary in the absence of clear plans. In the end it will come down to a question of fact based on a review of the available evidence. The claim for trespass was dismissed as the judge found in favour of the defendants.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available |
On 3 May 2024, Mr Justice Zacaroli delivered a judgment in a dispute to determine the position of a disputed boundary where the original transfers cannot be produced, examining the importance of aerial photographs and Ordnance Survey plans in the absence of a conveyance. Defendants trade as Castleton Residential Park. The claimants are the registered proprietors of freehold land and a house at Ty Chwarel. The catalyst for this dispute was the removal by the defendants of a substantial amount of trees, shrubs and other growth on, or towards the eastern side of, the boundary. Despite two surveyors opinions, the judge deemed they had no specialised knowledge, the judge concluded they were not bound to accept their conclusion, but must analyse the evidence in order to decide where the boundary lies. This case shows the difficulties associated with identifying a precise boundary in the absence of clear plans. In the end it will come down to a question of fact based on a review of the available evidence. The claim for trespass was dismissed as the judge found in favour of the defendants.