McCullough v Armstrong

McCullough v Armstrong

The 1969 conveyance did not include the track, as the express terms and plans indicate only the Croft was conveyed. There is no evidence the Croft included the track, and the plan annexed to the 1969 conveyance does not show the track as conveyed. The Deputy Adjudicator's conclusion that the track was not conveyed to the appellant is correct.

Parties
Appellant: Wilfred John McCullough; Respondent: David Armstrong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Title, Conveyancing, Right of Way, Land Registration
Property Law Rectification of Title Conveyancing Right of Way Land Registration

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilfred John McCullough

Appellant

David Armstrong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1969 conveyance included the track in question and thus conveyed title to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the right of way registered in favour of the respondent should be deleted from the title

Ratio Decidendi

The 1969 conveyance did not include the track, as the express terms and plans indicate only the Croft was conveyed. There is no evidence the Croft included the track, and the plan annexed to the 1969 conveyance does not show the track as conveyed. The Deputy Adjudicator's conclusion that the track was not conveyed to the appellant is correct.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs of the hearing before the Deputy Adjudicator