Piper & Anor v Wakeford & Anor

Piper & Anor v Wakeford & Anor

The district judge was entitled to determine the boundary based on admissible evidence, including the position of the fence erected by the vendor and the planting of pine trees by the purchaser after the 1908 conveyance, as these acts were probative of the parties’ intentions regarding the boundary. The judge was correct to reject the Defendants’ theory that the lane was intended to be 30 feet wide and that the 120 feet measurement should be taken from that point. The appeal was dismissed as the judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and applicable legal principles.

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 (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Interpretation of Conveyances, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Subsequent Conduct in Boundary Determination
Land Law Property Law Boundary Disputes Interpretation of Conveyances Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence Subsequent Conduct in Boundary Determination

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
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 (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the southern boundary of Pinewood be determined given ambiguous conveyance documents?
  2. 2 Is subsequent conduct and physical features admissible and probative in interpreting the 1908 conveyance?

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge was entitled to determine the boundary based on admissible evidence, including the position of the fence erected by the vendor and the planting of pine trees by the purchaser after the 1908 conveyance, as these acts were probative of the parties’ intentions regarding the boundary. The judge was correct to reject the Defendants’ theory that the lane was intended to be 30 feet wide and that the 120 feet measurement should be taken from that point. The appeal was dismissed as the judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and applicable legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of the District Judge affirmed