Introduction
Introduction
In December 2018 the appellant Mr Dunlop applied to HM Land Registry to be registered as proprietor of unregistered land adjoining his property known as Lunsford Farm in Pett, East Sussex. The application land is part of a lane or road. The respondent, Mr Romanoff, is the proprietor of Westcott, a house to the north of the road; he objected to the application, with the result that the matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) pursuant to section 73(7) of the Land Registration Act 2002. The FTT directed the registrar to cancel the application for registration; Mr Dunlop appeals that decision.
Mr Dunlop was represented by Mr Matthew Mills and Mr Romanoff by Mr Christopher Maynard, both of counsel, and I am grateful to them both.
The decision of the FTT was wonderfully clear and easy to understand because it included a number of plans, and I have followed the judge’s example in including some of them in this decision. In the paragraphs that follow I set out the background facts and relevant law, summarise the decision in the FTT, and then consider the arguments in the appeal.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual background
- The application land, Lunsford Farm, and Westcott
- The title to Lunsford Farm and to the application land
- The documents executed on 6 June 1918: (1) the conveyance of Westcott
- The documents executed on 6 June 1918: (2) the conveyance of Lunsford Farm
- Later deeds
- The legal principles
- Plan vs words
- Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Freemont Limited [2013] EWHC 1733 (Ch)
- Wesleyvale Limited v Harding Homes (East Anglia) Limited [2003] EWHC 2291 (Ch)
- The decision in the FTT
- The construction of the 1918 conveyance
- The arguments for the respondent
- Discussion and conclusion on the construction point
- Corrective interpretation, and the further ground of appeal
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 200 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)