Durden v Aston

Durden v Aston

The evidence, including the 1968 survey, physical features, and conveyancing documents, supports that the boundary should be a straight line between points G and C, not E and C as previously determined. The judge's findings were inconsistent with the preponderance of evidence and failed to address key inconsistencies and physical realities.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Emma Louise Durden; Appellant/defendant: Darren Norman William Aston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Land Registration, Adverse Possession, Rectification of Register
Property Law Boundary Disputes Land Registration Adverse Possession Rectification of Register

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emma Louise Durden

Respondent/claimant

Darren Norman William Aston

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correct position of the boundary between No. 70 and No. 68 Union Road
  2. 2 Effect of conveyances and Land Registry plans on boundary determination
  3. 3 Necessity and possibility of rectification of the register

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including the 1968 survey, physical features, and conveyancing documents, supports that the boundary should be a straight line between points G and C, not E and C as previously determined. The judge's findings were inconsistent with the preponderance of evidence and failed to address key inconsistencies and physical realities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the District Judge's order amended to declare the boundary as a straight line between points G and C