header-logo header-logo

27 May 2016 / Toby Boncey
Issue: 7700 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Homeward bound

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 titles…the purpose

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
A client cannot use a costs assessment to investigate whether their solicitor received commission on an after-the-event (ATE) insurance premium, the Court of Appeal has held
Law firms cannot be compelled to disclose documents protected by unwaived legal professional privilege (LPP) during misconduct investigations, the High Court has clarified
Solicitors have urged regulators not to impose unnecessary cost and complexity on third-party litigation funding
International demand for UK legal services is surging, with exports at record levels, according to Law Society research
back-to-top-scroll