Christopher Giles Cattermole v Theresa Naomi Jordan & Ors
Decision date: 20 April 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 113 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned the on-ground location of a boundary shown on a transfer plan between Mr Cattermole's land (title ON325953) and land retained by Miss Jordan and others. The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal's finding that the boundary ended at point X because that finding rested on irrelevant or unevidenced considerations (the price paid and an assumed drain) and failed to explain rejection of the experts' agreed position. The UT determined on the available evidence that the correct on-ground line runs from point C to point F (the northern edge of a buttress) and directed the registrar to give effect to Mr Cattermole's application using the experts' plan showing C–F, subject to representations.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
A tribunal locating a boundary from a plan must not base its conclusion on irrelevant matters such as the price paid for land (or other matters not pertinent to the construction of the transfer), and must give adequate reasons if it rejects unchallenged or agreed expert evidence about where a plan line falls on the ground; failure to do so can render the decision unsafe.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The notes indicate the UT observed that evidence of parties' subjective intentions or pre‑contractual plans (the Barrington plan) is not a reliable aid to construction where inconsistent with the transfer plan and should be given no weight. The UT also remarked that scaling up a Land Registry plan can be unreliable but is less problematic for a straight line if the angle from a fixed point is correct.