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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll