|
Decision notes |
[2025] UKFTT 00166 (PC)
A’s application for alteration of R’s title, to remove from it a strip of land which A claimed had not (on the true construction of the transfer of part between them) been transferred to R, was rejected.
While the transfer was poorly drafted, the Tribunal had to do its best to construe it. It had either transferred the strip, coloured yellow on the plan, or it had not. Looking at the transfer overall, and resolving any ambiguity or mutual inconsistency against the
party who put it forward (A), the yellow land had been transferred. Some of the cross-hatching, said to define the transferred property on the plan, had extended into the yellow colouring; which was likely to have been deliberate. The mutually inconsistent reservation (to A) of a right of way over the land, followed by a purported grant of such a right to R, would be resolved against A and in R’s favour. Further, the respective covenants entered into by the parties in relation to the land were more consistent with it having been transferred to R.
|