[2006] EWCA Civ 330, 31 March 2006. Considers how a conflict between dimensions in figures on a plan by which a property transferred was described and dimensions arrived at by scaling off the plan. Appeal by C against a decision that the distance between the northern boundary of land transferred by him to J and the northern boundary of land detained by him was 30 not 40 feet. The property transferred by C to J was expressed to be defined on the attached plan and shown edged red. C contended that if a plan used a dimension then the dimension governed and was almost invariably more accurate than a line on plan. J argued that the dimension could and should be ignored. "Held": appeal dismissed. The conflict between the marked dimension and the actual scaled width was to be resolved by reference to such inferences as might be drawn from topographical features that existed when the transfer was made. The judge had concluded correctly that a boundary based upon the red edging on the plan would coincide with features on the ground that could sensibly be regarded as boundary features.