000			01684cab a2200193 4500
001			##L133601
008			060522n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133601
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aEmmanuel Cook and JD Wetherspoon PLC
260			_c2006
520			_a[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.
650	2	4	_aCOOK V JD WETHERSPOON PLC
650	2	4	_aJACKSON V BISHOP
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/330.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c77106 _d77106