British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> (1) Timothy Richard Nixon (2) Christian Leader v (1) Stephen Aldridge (2) Catherine Aldridge (Boundary dispute : Boundary dispute) [2019] UKFTT 156 (PC) (26 February 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/156.html
Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 156 (PC)
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Decision summary
REF/2018/0325
| Case reference | REF/2018/0325 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 26/02/2019 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Daniel Dovar |
| Applicant | (1) Timothy Richard Nixon (2) Christian Leader |
| Respondent | (1) Stephen Aldridge (2) Catherine Aldridge |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Boundary dispute |
| Sub Category | Ad medium filum |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Boundary dispute |
| Sub Category | Ad medium filum |
| Decision notes | [2019] UKFTT 156 (PC). Application to register part of a road that dissected the subject property under the ad medium filum presumptions. The road stood between the house and garden. Both parties accepted that the second presumption applied, but the respondents contended it was rebutted by a number of factors. I found that it had been rebutted and directed the cancellation of the application. The property and the adjacent property and the road had all been in common ownership until 1916 when the subject property was transferred out. It was tolerably clear that given that the registrar had marked out the house and garden separately on title, with the road running between, that the conveyance (which had been lost) had not intended to transfer the road. But I considered that following Giles v County Building, that was not a factor that could be taken into account when considering if the presumption had been rebutted. Factors that I could and did take into account were: a.) the fact that the common owner retained the adjacent land at the time of the sale of the adjacent property, and b.) that an express right of way was granted in favour of the subject property over the road. |
| Download decision(s) | [2019] UKFTT 156 (PC) |