000			01754cad a22002295a 4500
001			L144566
008			080729e20080718xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u144566
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aBradford & Anor v James and Ors _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCA Civ 837, 18 July 2008. A plan annexed to a conveyance was unclear: extrinsic evidence was admissible to clarify and construe the conveyance and ascertain the intentions of the parties involved. Relevant to surveyors as the judge commented on the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution as the preferred option for managing such disputes. Appellants (B) appealled against a decision that a cobbled strip outside the front door of their property belonged to respondents (J), stating that there was a lack of clarity in the plans and conveyancing for the properties involved. Held: There was a lack of clarity in a 1976 conveyance plan and extrinsic evidence was admissible to show the intents of the parties in relation to the land. Existing conversion plans for B's property would seem to indicate that the land fell within their boundary and that W (the previous owners of J's farm) had not objected to this when original plans for a conversion of B's property had been submitted.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aBRADFORD & ANOR V JAMES & ORS
650	2	4	_aALAN WIBBERLEY BUILDING LTD V INSLEY
650	2	4	_aALI V LANE
650	2	4	_aHAYCOCKS AND ANOTHER V NEVILLE AND ANOTHER
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-BOUNDARY DETERMINATION-BOUNDARIES
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/837.html _zView this case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c80519 _d80519