Druce v Druce

Druce v Druce

The 1976 conveyance, when construed as a whole and in light of the plan and extrinsic evidence, conveyed only plot B to Alan Druce. The Tomlin order did not acknowledge or vest title to plot A in Alan Druce, nor did it resolve disputes between Alan and Roger. There was no estoppel by representation as Alan knew he did not have title to plot A and did not act to his detriment in reliance on any representation by Roger.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alan Gerald Druce; Respondent/defendant: Roger Ellis Druce
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Conveyancing, Estoppel by Representation, Interpretation of Tomlin Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Boundary Disputes Conveyancing Estoppel by Representation Interpretation of Tomlin Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Gerald Druce

Appellant/claimant

Roger Ellis Druce

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the 1976 conveyance: did Alan Druce receive plot B only or plots A and B?
  2. 2 Whether the Tomlin order of 1991 vested title to plot A in Alan Druce or acknowledged his ownership
  3. 3 Whether Roger Druce is estopped by representation from denying Alan's title to plot A

Ratio Decidendi

The 1976 conveyance, when construed as a whole and in light of the plan and extrinsic evidence, conveyed only plot B to Alan Druce. The Tomlin order did not acknowledge or vest title to plot A in Alan Druce, nor did it resolve disputes between Alan and Roger. There was no estoppel by representation as Alan knew he did not have title to plot A and did not act to his detriment in reliance on any representation by Roger.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.