Lovering and another v Atkinson and others (Guernsey)

Lovering and another v Atkinson and others (Guernsey)

The Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the 1960 Conveyance, holding that the plan and its measurements were incorporated into the description of the driveway, and that the sale of land in the 1984 Conveyance materially reduced the access route, resulting in a defect in title. Therefore, AFR were negligent in allowing the purchase with a defective title.

Parties
Respondents: Lovering and another; Appellants: Atkinson and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conveyancing, Defective Title, Boundary Interpretation, Role of Plans in Conveyances
Property Law Professional Negligence Conveyancing Defective Title Boundary Interpretation Role of Plans in Conveyances

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

Lovering and another

Respondents

Atkinson and others

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1960 Conveyance intended the driveway boundary to follow the line shown on the annexed plan or the physical boundary markers
  2. 2 Whether the sale of land in the 1984 Conveyance materially reduced the access route to which Mr and Mrs Lovering had title
  3. 3 Whether AFR were negligent in allowing clients to purchase property with a defective title

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the 1960 Conveyance, holding that the plan and its measurements were incorporated into the description of the driveway, and that the sale of land in the 1984 Conveyance materially reduced the access route, resulting in a defect in title. Therefore, AFR were negligent in allowing the purchase with a defective title.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Board will humbly advise Her Majesty accordingly.