Alan Wibberley Building Ltd v Insley
Series: Estates Gazette Law Reports ; 24 EG 160-164(5)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: HL 29 April 1999. The appellant (I) acquired land from PB by conveyance. PB's title was a conveyance of 1975, the schedule to which described the land by reference to OS enclosure numbers. The respondent's (W's) title was by verbal description without reference to OS numbers. I's land was separated by a hedge and ditch from W's adjoining land, the ditch being on W's side of the hedge. In 1987, I removed the hedge and erected a fence along the old line on the far lip of the ditch. W brought proceedings against I for trespass. I's appeal was dismissed by the CA, upholding the previous decision that the boundary ran along the centre of the hedge. I appealed. "Held" appeal allowed. There was no evidence to displace the hedge and ditch presumption: the boundary ran along W's side of the ditch.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS60766 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 101263-1001 |
HL 29 April 1999. The appellant (I) acquired land from PB by conveyance. PB's title was a conveyance of 1975, the schedule to which described the land by reference to OS enclosure numbers. The respondent's (W's) title was by verbal description without reference to OS numbers. I's land was separated by a hedge and ditch from W's adjoining land, the ditch being on W's side of the hedge. In 1987, I removed the hedge and erected a fence along the old line on the far lip of the ditch. W brought proceedings against I for trespass. I's appeal was dismissed by the CA, upholding the previous decision that the boundary ran along the centre of the hedge. I appealed. "Held" appeal allowed. There was no evidence to displace the hedge and ditch presumption: the boundary ran along W's side of the ditch.