High Court considers how evidence seeking to establish precise boundaries using datum points should be assessed in boundary dispute

01 Jan 2018


Matt Hutchings successfully defends a decision of William Hanson, sitting as an Adjudicator to HM Land Registry in Currey v Fletcher [2013], Chancery Division, 15th May 2013.

The Adjudicator produced a decision in a boundary dispute involving issues of paper title, boundary agreements and adverse possession.

The opponents sought permission to appeal from the Chancery Division, where they were represented by George Lawrence QC.

The main issue pursued on appeal was that the Adjudicator had erred in not seeking to pinpoint datum points from which dimensions on a root of title conveyance plan were measured. However, the Judge accepted that it was open to the Adjudicator on the evidence to decide that the Appellant had not proved these datum points. Therefore, the alleged falsity of the visual representation contained in the plan, that the boundary was a ditch, had not been demonstrated. This was not an error of law but part of the Adjudicator’s assessment of the evidence.

Permission to appeal was refused and the opponents were ordered to pay half of the respondent’s costs of opposing permission.

For more information about this decision, please contact the Cornerstone Clerks.