BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> (1) Dawn Karina May (2) Richard Andrew Jurga v (1) Anthony James Iles (2) Deborah Louise Iles (Boundary dispute : Inferences to be drawn from surrounding circumstances) [2018] UKFTT 575 (PC) (31 August 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2018/575.html Cite as: [2018] UKFTT 575 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
(1) Dawn Karina May (2) Richard Andrew Jurga v (1) Anthony James Iles (2) Deborah Louise Iles (Boundary dispute : Inferences to be drawn from surrounding circumstances) [2018] UKFTT 575 (PC) (31 August 2018)
[2018] UKFTT 575 (PC). Determined Boundary application re two unconnected stretches of boundary -“ Area 1 and Area 2 - between the parties-™ titles. Re Area 1, whether the line of an old wooden fence to the east of a line of beech trees, or the line of a barbed wire fence to the east of the beech trees was the true boundary -“ whether fence a replacement for the previous barbed wire boundary fence, said to have been moved as part of a binding oral boundary agreement -“ photographic evidence that the OS field boundary at the date of the relevant conveyance (1940) was a substantial hedge - oral evidence that hedge dug up and replaced along the same line by what was now the line of beech trees -whether, since the parcel was described in the 1940 conveyance by reference to the OS field boundary, the line of trees represented the boundary (Fisher v Winch) - held that the Area 1 boundary followed the centre line of the trees, (b) the barbed wire fences were stock fences and not boundary fences, and (c) there was no boundary agreement. Re Area 2, a possessory title, obtained by Respondent-™s predecessor in title in 2004, evidence from original possessor identifying the extent of the land which he had adversely possessed -“ up to a particular gate post. Gatepost no longer existed but expert evidence established its position by other means -“ whether this the true boundary or the line of a mesh fence erected by Applicant in 2009. Held that the Area 2 boundary extended to a point where the gate post had previously stood. The mesh fence had been erected to prevent Applicant-™s dog from escaping and not as a boundary marker.
A HTML version of this file is not available click here or view below the pdf version : [2018] UKFTT 575 (PC)
