Lanfear & Anor v Chandler

Lanfear & Anor v Chandler

The judge was entitled to resolve the ambiguity in the transfer and plan by reference to the physical features on the ground as they existed at the time of the original transfer, including the orientation of the fence and the use of concrete edging stones, rather than relying solely on the 'T' marks or the plan. However, the judge erred in declaring the boundary along the garage wall without incorporating the expert's measurement of 80mm from the wall, as accepted in his own judgment.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Richard Lanfear; Claimant/respondent: Mary Lanfear; Defendant/appellant: Margaret Chandler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment in Boundary Dispute
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Construction of Conveyances, Interpretation of Transfer Plans, Ownership and Maintenance of Boundary Features
Property Law Boundary Disputes Construction of Conveyances Interpretation of Transfer Plans Ownership and Maintenance of Boundary Features

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

Parties

Richard Lanfear

Claimant/respondent

Mary Lanfear

Claimant/respondent

Margaret Chandler

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment in Boundary Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the 1971 transfers and attached plans regarding the boundary between 3 and 5 Barton Road
  2. 2 Effect and interpretation of 'T' marks on transfer plans
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in determining the boundary line and in ordering removal of a car port

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to resolve the ambiguity in the transfer and plan by reference to the physical features on the ground as they existed at the time of the original transfer, including the orientation of the fence and the use of concrete edging stones, rather than relying solely on the 'T' marks or the plan. However, the judge erred in declaring the boundary along the garage wall without incorporating the expert's measurement of 80mm from the wall, as accepted in his own judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph 1(f) of the judge’s order varied to incorporate the 80mm measurement from the garage wall as the boundary line
  • Appeal otherwise dismissed