|
Post by Bruce Speirs on Nov 24, 2014 3:33:51 GMT
Many thanks to Simon Jenkin for his workshop on the recent High Court case regarding limitations as to parcel land. Having never undertaken a survey to remove limitations as to parcels, I have had the luxury to view this item from a distance. If I understand correctly, LINZ and the survey profession have historically viewed a survey undertaken to uplift limitations as to parcels as a survey issue, with the aim to align a computer registers legal boundaries with the occupation present. It appears the High Court has now disagreed with this approach, and has instead taken the view that the limitation as to parcels notation on a computer register is a legal matter, warning owners that they may not be occupying their documentary title. If one considers that a cadastral survey is attempting to redefine original boundaries (within a little more or less), then I have to say the High Courts decision appears consistent with the duty of the Cadastral Surveyor to identify original boundaries, while any evidence of adverse possession is a different matter altogether. The effect of the High Court decision may be that as Cadastral Surveyors, we need to tweak the hierarchy of evidence that we are using in cadastral surveys, giving documentation considerably more weight than occupation.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gillespie on Nov 27, 2014 20:37:22 GMT
I have to admit that I have trouble fully interpreting these court decisions but it appeared to me that the judge decided that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the occupation was old enough to predate the first LT title. Have I understood this correctly?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Speirs on Feb 15, 2015 22:51:39 GMT
In fact it appears occupation had nothing to do with the decision on definition, but was related to adverse possession. Put basically, the occupation was not on the boundaries (a little more or less - within survey accuracies) and therefore did not define the boundaries of the parcel. The limitation as to parcel on the title then becomes a warning to owners that the land they are occupying may not be the land they own.
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Feb 27, 2015 3:27:28 GMT
[This was so good I thought I would paste it twice into the forum at appropriate posts - so my apologies if you have already seen it ]
I have had the great fortune to recently read an excerpt from a Supreme Court decision concerning a boundary dispute concerning the importance of occupation as evidence. The decision included:
"Even where monuments exist which enable a more accurate survey to be made, no trifling discrepancy can be allowed to over-rule the practical interpretation put upon the instrument by such occupation. The occupier is not to be driven to rely on a mere possessory title; but has a right to assert that the land he holds is the very land granted. Land-surveying is a practical art; which is as much to say that it is not capable of the ideal precision of the mathematics."
Excellent. And even more interesting is the date of this statement = 1886 !!
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gillespie on Apr 2, 2015 1:59:29 GMT
from NZIS Limited Titles Masterclass
"If the survey reveals that the owner of the land under survey is adversely occupying part of an adjoining limited title, then the adversely occupied portion should not be included in the newly surveyed parcel unless it is shown as adverse possession and it is intended to claim title to this land in conjunction with the removal of limitations of the land under survey."
From CSG 2001Chapter 11 Sec 11.7.1
"Where two limited titles abut each other, and occupation is of the requisite age then this occupation is to be pegged."
|
|