Druce v Druce [2003] EWCA Civ 535 (11 February 2003)
The 1976 conveyance to Alan Druce conveyed only plot B, not plot A, as the verbal description in the parcels clause prevails over the plan. The Tomlin order did not acknowledge Alan's ownership of plot A nor resolve disputes between Alan and Roger. No estoppel by representation arose as there was no clear representation or detrimental reliance by Alan.
- Citation
- [2003] EWCA Civ 535
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Alan Gerald Druce; Respondent/defendant: Roger Ellis Druce
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Boundary Disputes, Conveyancing Interpretation, Estoppel by Representation, Tomlin Order, Extrinsic Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alan Gerald Druce
Appellant/claimant
Roger Ellis Druce
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Proper construction of the 1976 conveyance to Alan Druce
- 2 Effect of the Tomlin order of 1 July 1991 on ownership of plot A
- 3 Estoppel by representation regarding title to plot A
Ratio Decidendi
The 1976 conveyance to Alan Druce conveyed only plot B, not plot A, as the verbal description in the parcels clause prevails over the plan. The Tomlin order did not acknowledge Alan's ownership of plot A nor resolve disputes between Alan and Roger. No estoppel by representation arose as there was no clear representation or detrimental reliance by Alan.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; no change to title or boundaries; costs follow the event
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