Pollock v Oldfield & Anor

Pollock v Oldfield & Anor

The evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that there was a stock-proof fence running the length of the bank and the gap in 1928, and that this fence marked the legal boundary. Therefore, the boundary lies to the west of the bank as contended by Ms Pollock.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Clare Alexandra Pollock; Defendant/respondent: Robert Charles Oldfield; Defendant/respondent: Jennifer Oldfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Dispute, Interpretation of Conveyance, Damages, Injunction
Property Law Boundary Dispute Interpretation of Conveyance Damages Injunction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clare Alexandra Pollock

Claimant/appellant

Robert Charles Oldfield

Defendant/respondent

Jennifer Oldfield

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Where is the legal boundary between Kaduna and Rivendell?
  2. 2 Was there a stock-proof fence along the boundary at the time of the 1928 conveyance?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate relief if the boundary was infringed?

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence establishes that it is more probable than not that there was a stock-proof fence running the length of the bank and the gap in 1928, and that this fence marked the legal boundary. Therefore, the boundary lies to the west of the bank as contended by Ms Pollock.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for Ms Pollock for damages in the sum of £22,500
  • Consequential matters to be addressed by counsel if not agreed