Cameron v Boggiano & Anor

Cameron v Boggiano & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that Plan A was insufficiently clear to fix the boundary without recourse to extrinsic evidence. Considering the topographical features and the parties' objective intentions, the boundary was found to be along the line of the drain, not the rear wall of No 60. The claimant did not acquire the gravel strip. The judge's decision to rectify the title documents to reflect the common intention to exclude the gravel strip was upheld.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Devon Cameron; Respondent/defendant: Angela Boggiano; Respondent/defendant: Craig Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Defendants' cross-appeal on construction allowed; claimant's appeal on rectification dismissed.
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Construction of Title Documents, Rectification of Documents, Common Intention, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence
Property Law Land Law Boundary Disputes Construction of Title Documents Rectification of Documents Common Intention Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devon Cameron

Appellant/claimant

Angela Boggiano

Respondent/defendant

Craig Robertson

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the boundary between No 7 Choumert Mews and No 60 Choumert Road runs along the rear wall of No 60 or along the line of a drain 4ft in advance of the wall
  2. 2 Whether the title documents (contract, TP1 Transfer, Plan A) are clear and unambiguous as to the boundary
  3. 3 Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to construe the boundary

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Plan A was insufficiently clear to fix the boundary without recourse to extrinsic evidence. Considering the topographical features and the parties' objective intentions, the boundary was found to be along the line of the drain, not the rear wall of No 60. The claimant did not acquire the gravel strip. The judge's decision to rectify the title documents to reflect the common intention to exclude the gravel strip was upheld.

Court Disposition

Defendants' cross-appeal on construction allowed; claimant's appeal on rectification dismissed.

Orders

  • Boundary declared to run along the line of the drain, not the rear wall of No 60.
  • Title documents to be rectified to exclude the gravel strip from No 7.