Pollock v Oldfield & Anor [2018] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (24 October 2018)
The evidence establishes it is more probable than not that there was a stock-proof fence running the length of the bank and gap in 1928, marking the legal boundary to the west of the bank. The boundary now lies to the west of the bank, as Ms Pollock contends.
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 2743 (Ch)
- 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
- Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Determination, 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.
Parties
Clare Alexandra Pollock
Claimant/appellant
Robert Charles Oldfield
Defendant/respondent
Jennifer Oldfield
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Where is the boundary between Kaduna and Rivendell?
- 2 Was there a stock-proof fence along the bank at the time of the Operative Conveyance?
- 3 What relief is appropriate if the hedge was wrongfully cut?
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence establishes it is more probable than not that there was a stock-proof fence running the length of the bank and gap in 1928, marking the legal boundary to the west of the bank. The boundary now lies to the west of the bank, as Ms Pollock contends.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment for Ms Pollock for damages in the sum of £22,500
- Further consequential matters to be determined if not agreed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment