[2023] UKUT 200 (LC)

Everyone who has studied unregistered conveyancing knows that where a plan is said by a conveyance to be “for the purposes of identification only” they should look to the wording of the conveyance, and that a more precise description in that wording will prevail over the plan. By contrast if the plan is said to be one on which the land is “more particularly delineated” then it will prevail if the words are unclear. Difficulties arise where the conveyance describes the plan using both of those phrases, or neither, but here it is beyond dispute that the conveyance is said to more particularly delineate the land conveyed (the same phrase is used for each of the three parcels).

The primary authority on the effect of such a plan is Eastwood v Ashton [1915] AC 900. The question was whether a strip of land, about one-twelfth of an acre in size, had been conveyed. The land was said to be “more particularly delineated” on the plan. The words of the conveyance were problematic – either inaccurate or imprecise – but the plan clearly showed that the disputed strip was included. The plan prevailed.

Earl Loreburn, at page 908, said:

“The whole should be looked at, and it may be that the plan will show that there is less clearness in the text than might appear at first sight. It is so in this case, certainly as to the part not in the occupation of either tenant, and in my opinion it is so also as to the strip in dispute. The description of the land as Bank Hey Farm does not help. The acreage is admittedly not precise and does not help. The description of the land as being in the occupation is not accurate. I think that the one accurate guide is this endorsed plan.”

Lord Parker of Waddington at page 912 said:

“It appears to me that of the three descriptions in question the only certain and unambiguous description is that by reference to the map. With this map in his hand any competent person could identify on the spot the various parcels of land therein coloured red.”

It is important that the words of the conveyance in Easton v Ashton did not provide a clear answer. It is also important that the House of Lords did not say that a plan that more particularly delineates the land will always prevail over the wording of the conveyance where the wording is unclear.

Again, I believe that thus far what I have said is uncontroversial. We now have to look at two difficult cases, both decided at first instance in the High Court.