Dixon & Anor v Hodgson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1612 (20 December 2011)

Dixon & Anor v Hodgson & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1612 (20 December 2011)

The boundary must be determined by giving dominant weight to the plan attached to the 2003 Transfer, as it defines the property. Although the plan was unclear, it provided sufficient fixed points and direction to establish the boundary as running from the north end of the Green Farm gate westwards, not along the low wall. The Recorder erred by discarding the plan and relying solely on physical features. The appeal is allowed and the boundary is to be determined as set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1612
Parties
Appellants: Dixon & Anr; Respondents: Hodgson & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Interpretation of Conveyances, Land Registration, Construction of Plans
Property Law Boundary Disputes Interpretation of Conveyances Land Registration Construction of Plans

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dixon & Anr

Appellants

Hodgson & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct boundary between The Arches and the Bungalow Site as defined by the 2003 Transfer and plan?
  2. 2 Did the Recorder apply the correct legal test in determining the boundary?

Ratio Decidendi

The boundary must be determined by giving dominant weight to the plan attached to the 2003 Transfer, as it defines the property. Although the plan was unclear, it provided sufficient fixed points and direction to establish the boundary as running from the north end of the Green Farm gate westwards, not along the low wall. The Recorder erred by discarding the plan and relying solely on physical features. The appeal is allowed and the boundary is to be determined as set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recorder's order set aside
  • Boundary determined as per paragraphs 62 and 63 of the judgment