Piper & Anor v Wakeford & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 1378 (17 December 2008)

Piper & Anor v Wakeford & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 1378 (17 December 2008)

The District Judge was entitled to find, based on admissible evidence including the position of the fence and the planting of pine trees by the original parties, that the southern boundary of Pinewood coincides with the northern boundary of Nirvana, and not as contended by the Defendants. The plan and area measurements in the 1908 conveyance were too unreliable to override this conclusion. The Defendants' theory of a 30-foot lane was not supported by sufficient evidence, and subsequent acts by the original parties were probative of their intentions.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1378
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Howard David Piper; Claimant/respondent: Lynda Carole Piper; Defendant/appellant: John Wakeford; Defendant/appellant: Clara Gwendoline Wakeford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Interpretation of Conveyances, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Title by Adverse Possession
Property Law Land Law Boundary Disputes Interpretation of Conveyances Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence Title by Adverse Possession

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard David Piper

Claimant/respondent

Lynda Carole Piper

Claimant/respondent

John Wakeford

Defendant/appellant

Clara Gwendoline Wakeford

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct position of the southern boundary of Pinewood as conveyed in 1908?
  2. 2 Is extrinsic evidence, including subsequent conduct and physical features, admissible in construing the boundary?
  3. 3 Did the Defendants acquire title by adverse possession to any land in dispute?

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to find, based on admissible evidence including the position of the fence and the planting of pine trees by the original parties, that the southern boundary of Pinewood coincides with the northern boundary of Nirvana, and not as contended by the Defendants. The plan and area measurements in the 1908 conveyance were too unreliable to override this conclusion. The Defendants' theory of a 30-foot lane was not supported by sufficient evidence, and subsequent acts by the original parties were probative of their intentions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; District Judge's decision affirmed