Sparling v Norman & Anor (Rev 1)

Sparling v Norman & Anor (Rev 1)

The court held that, due to the imprecision of the deed and plan, it was legitimate to consider extrinsic evidence, including the subsequent conduct of the original parties, which overwhelmingly indicated that the top of the bank was intended as the boundary. The judge's conclusion was justified and within the tolerance permitted by the deed's description.

Parties
Appellant: Roger Arnold Sparling; Respondent: John Arthur Norman; Respondent: Sylvia Arthur Norman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Construction of Conveyances, Extrinsic Evidence, Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Arnold Sparling

Appellant

John Arthur Norman

Respondent

Sylvia Arthur Norman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the boundary between Hebron Farm Cottage and Arnwood is at the top or bottom of the bank separating the properties
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence, including subsequent conduct, can be used to determine the boundary where the deed and plan are imprecise

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, due to the imprecision of the deed and plan, it was legitimate to consider extrinsic evidence, including the subsequent conduct of the original parties, which overwhelmingly indicated that the top of the bank was intended as the boundary. The judge's conclusion was justified and within the tolerance permitted by the deed's description.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judge's order as to the boundary stands.