Home Login E-newsletter About us Subscribe

Homeward bound

27 May 2016 / Toby Boncey
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Features , Property
nlj_7700_boncey

At the boundaries of permissible & impermissible boundary determinations. Toby Boncey reports

In Murdoch v Amesbury [2016] UKUT 3 (TCC), His Honour Judge Dight, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, held that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the line of a boundary. The FTT had already dismissed the applicants’ application for determination of the exact line of the boundary under s 60(3) of the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002) because the plan submitted was not within the required tolerance for a determined boundary plan (10mm). Having decided that the plan was inaccurate and the application to determine the boundary should be rejected, the FTT had no jurisdiction to go on to decide where the boundary did lie.

HHJ Dight noted that the FTT had no inherent jurisdiction, so the question was one of statutory construction. Section 60(3) itself merely provides for rules to be made, but HHJ Dight held that the section “properly construed, relates to the registration of plans which show the parcels, and boundaries, of the related registered title

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Lawrence Stephens Promotes Nisha Saigal to Director
Head of product joins Access Legal
Laurus announces three promotions in the firm’s residential property team
NEWS
Rules of origin complicates trade after Brexit
2021 ‘big year’ for cryptocurrency regulation
Costs warning for the non-negotiators
The Institute for Government has published a report on the ongoing consultation and discourse into reforming judicial review
‘Logical’ rules breached and replaced