PP 2012/43

A plan that is “for identification only” does not necessarily show the true boundary of land included in a conveyance or transfer   The Land Registry no longer accepts plans that are described as being “for identification only”. However, practitioners often have to interpret conveyances or transfers that use this time-honoured phrase. In such cases, the words indicate that the plan does not identify the precise boundaries of the land. In Brown v Pretot [2011] EWCA Civ 1421, the court had to deal with a transfer of part that described the land sold by reference to a plan that was for identification only. The plan showed a garage that was not in the position in which it had actually been built. The garage was constructed between exchange and completion and, if the boundary line were to have followed the line marked on the plan, part of the garage would have been in the neighbouring plot. The Court of Appeal decided that its task was to construe the transfer as a whole on the date on which it was made and to resolve any contradictions. A plan that is described as being “for identification only” may be taken into account, particularly when the parcels clause is inadequate to define the boundaries with precision. In this case, the parcels clause in the transfer was insufficient to identify the boundaries – except in so far as it placed the garage within the plot. However, the plan was in conflict with the parcels clause.  Consequently, the court decided to interpret the transfer by reference to the actual and known physical condition of the land at the date of the transfer or conveyance, as well as the surrounding circumstances.  This enabled the court to take into account the physical location of the garage and the fence between the properties, as well as fencing covenants with which it would have been impossible to comply without tearing down the fence erected by the developer and constructing a new one. The court thought that it would be remarkable if the transfer did not include all of the garage, especially as the transfer referred to “the Garage” and described it as the garage built within the plot. Therefore, it ruled that, on the facts of this case, the boundary shown on the plan attached to the transfer must give way to the topographical features on the ground. Where land is described as being “more particularly delineated on the plan” attached to a conveyance or transfer, the plan will carry more weight and, if the physical description in the parcels clause conflicts with the plan, the plan will usually prevail over the words in the conveyance or transfer.  However, perfect accuracy on plans is unattainable. In addition, copying, reducing or enlarging a plan is likely to distort its accuracy. Consequently, even title plans prepared by the Land Registry show general boundaries only and do not purport to identify exact legal boundary lines (unless proprietors have applied to have them formally determined).   Allyson Colby, property law consultant