![[2025] UKUT 141 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Grounds of appeal
Grounds of appeal
The issues for which permission to appeal was granted were these:
Whether the FTT erred in law or was plainly wrong in concluding that the 1949 paper title boundary lay along the western edge of the line of pine trees.
Whether the FTT was wrong in law to treat the 1971 agreement as valid and binding despite having been executed by Mr Dewar, who was not the registered proprietor.
Whether the FTT was wrong to conclude that the Memorandum operated as an effective boundary agreement, despite failing to meet the formal requirements for a transfer of land.
Whether the FTT erred in concluding that Mrs Jaques had acquired title to the land by adverse possession.
As the Judge pointed out when himself refusing permission to appeal, it is necessary for Mr Bishop to succeed not only on ground 2 or ground 3 but also on both of grounds 1 and 4, since these were free standing alternative grounds for the dismissal of his application. It is nevertheless convenient to begin by considering the validity and effectiveness of the Memorandum as a boundary agreement, which the Judge found to be determinative. Unless Mr Bishop can dislodge the Judge’s conclusions on grounds 2 or 3 the appeal must fail.