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
Chambers appoints new Silk
Group appoints General Counsel
NEWS
Diversity & inclusion were given as a key priority by Chris Bushell in his speech as president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA), back in March
The clock is ticking for obtaining effective UK pension sharing orders after an overseas divorce once the Brexit transitional period ends on December 31, practitioners are warning
Judges and family practitioners are changing tack in their approach to pensions sharing on divorce, research shows
The disclosure pilot, which began in January 2019, could be extended until the end of 2021, if the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) agrees
In-house lawyers are being asked for their thoughts on future trends in tech, as part of research being conducted by LexisNexis