Strachey v Ramage

Strachey v Ramage

The true boundary between the parties' properties is marked by the fence erected in January 1988, as evidenced by the terms of the 1988 conveyance, the parties' conduct, and relevant legal principles. The filed plans on the registered titles do not show the exact boundary and are in error to the extent they do not follow the fence. The register should be altered to reflect the correct boundary. The appellant's claim based on adverse possession is unnecessary to decide, but would likely have succeeded if required.

Parties
Appellant: Julie Strachey; Respondent: Fraser Thomas Ramage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Interpretation of Conveyances, Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Rectification of Land Register
Property Law Land Law Boundary Disputes Interpretation of Conveyances Adverse Possession Land Registration Rectification of Land 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Strachey

Appellant

Fraser Thomas Ramage

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the boundary between the parties' properties is marked by the fence erected in 1988 or by the line shown on the conveyance plan
  2. 2 Whether the appellant or respondent has title to the disputed land
  3. 3 Whether the appellant acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The true boundary between the parties' properties is marked by the fence erected in January 1988, as evidenced by the terms of the 1988 conveyance, the parties' conduct, and relevant legal principles. The filed plans on the registered titles do not show the exact boundary and are in error to the extent they do not follow the fence. The register should be altered to reflect the correct boundary. The appellant's claim based on adverse possession is unnecessary to decide, but would likely have succeeded if required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the boundary is marked by the fence erected in January 1988
  • Order for alteration of the register to correct the boundary on the parties' registered titles