Pollock v Oldfield & Anor [2018] EWHC 2743 (Ch) (24 October 2018)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 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

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Where is the boundary between Kaduna and Rivendell?
  2. 2 Was there a stock-proof fence along the bank at the time of the Operative Conveyance?
  3. 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