000			01772cad a22002175a 4500
001			L143604
008			080521e20080418xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u143604
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aStrachey v Ramage _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCA Civ 384, 18 April 2008. Considers the legal principles relevant to a boundary dispute neighbouring landowners. The appellant (S) and respondent (R) were in possession of areas of land which had been in common ownership before being sold to their predecessor landowners. Since 1988 a fence had served as the physical boundary between the parcels of land. However the 2008 conveyancing document described a boundary which gave R more land. S had argued that the conveyance was for the purposes of identification only and was not to be construed as an exact boundary distinction. Further, that in any case she and her predecessor had been in adverse possession for over 12 years. The judge found for R on both counts, and S appealed. "Held": The conveyancing document's plan did not follow any physical feature for the division of the parcels of land. Accordingly it could not be used to determine the case. The judge had misdirected himself as to the applicable principles. A clause in the conveyance provided the answer, which was that the fence marked the boundary. Appeal allowed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aSTRACHEY V RAMAGE
650	2	4	_aWILLSON V GREENE
650	2	4	_aWIGGINTON & MILNER LTD V WINSTER ENGINEERING LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/384.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80244 _d80244