Avon Estates Ltd v Evans & Anor

Avon Estates Ltd v Evans & Anor

The legal boundary between Avon Park and Oxtalls Farm is the centre line of the hedge as it existed at the date of the 1955 conveyance, as shown on the Ordnance Survey-based plan, and as modified by the 1964 conveyance. T marks on the plan do not alter this position. The defendants have not established adverse possession over any part of the disputed land. The claimant is not liable in nuisance for works to the access road, as there is no duty to receive natural drainage and no unreasonable use was established.

Parties
Claimant: Avon Estates Ltd; Defendant: Richard Evans; Defendant: Susan Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Adverse Possession, Nuisance, Conveyancing Interpretation, Land Drainage
Property Law Land Law Tort Law Boundary Disputes Adverse Possession Nuisance Conveyancing Interpretation Land Drainage

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

Parties

Avon Estates Ltd

Claimant

Richard Evans

Defendant

Susan Evans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal boundary between Avon Park and Oxtalls Farm as established by the 1955 and 1964 conveyances?
  2. 2 Does the presence of T marks on the conveyance plan affect the legal boundary or indicate ownership/responsibility?
  3. 3 Have the defendants acquired title to any disputed land by adverse possession?

Ratio Decidendi

The legal boundary between Avon Park and Oxtalls Farm is the centre line of the hedge as it existed at the date of the 1955 conveyance, as shown on the Ordnance Survey-based plan, and as modified by the 1964 conveyance. T marks on the plan do not alter this position. The defendants have not established adverse possession over any part of the disputed land. The claimant is not liable in nuisance for works to the access road, as there is no duty to receive natural drainage and no unreasonable use was established.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration as to the location of the boundary in accordance with the judgment
  • Counterclaim for nuisance dismissed