Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is a reference by the Chief Land Registrar of an application by GRDL to alter the general boundary of titles YEA17127 and YEA15173.�� In effect this is an application to undo an alteration to the general boundary directed by the Solicitor to the Land Registry in July 2005 on the application of the present Respondents (the Davises).
Until 2000, both plots of land were owned by Ernest and Margaret Woodliffe (the Woodliffes), who are the parents of the Davises.� In May 2000 the Woodliffes wished to sell most of their land to GRDL, who intended to develop it, but they wished to retain a plot of land to give to the Davises, so that they could build a house on it.�
There were discussions between the Woodliffes and GRDL as to the shape and size of the plot to be retained.� In paragraph 6 of his witness statement in REF/2005/0092, Roy Potter, the director of GRDL who conducted the negotiations with the Woodliffes, describes what happened as follows:
�During our negotiations to purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Woodliffe they were unclear as to precisely which area of land, its location and size they wished to retain and we became aware that this was because they were referring to Mr. and Mrs. Davis on this matter.� However, in the course of those negotiations (in which on at least one occasion Mr. and Mrs. Davis were present) agreement was reached and the lines were drawn to show the area to be retained and our purchase was completed on the basis of those plans.�
GRDL�s Statement of Case also states, at paragraph 6, that through negotiations between GRDL and the Woodliffes, lines were drawn on the relevant plans to show the areas being retained by the Woodliffes and GRDL�s purchase was completed on the basis of those plans.� The Statement of Case continues �Having negotiated the size of the plot they wished to retain, the Woodliffes put forward a design of their own for their planning application which resulted in a building with the same footprint as that of the plot�.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.