Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Ltd v Hayman & Anor [2025] EWHC 3224 (Ch) (17 December 2025)

Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Ltd v Hayman & Anor [2025] EWHC 3224 (Ch) (17 December 2025)

The 2002 Transfer and its plan, construed objectively, did not exclude the Disputed Land from the property transferred to Welshman and subsequently to the claimant. The plan was not sufficiently precise to exclude the Disputed Land, and the only land retained by Mr Jelbert was that expressly defined as 'Retained Land.' Extrinsic evidence and subsequent conduct were inadmissible or not probative. Business common sense also supported the claimant's construction, as otherwise the property would be landlocked.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3224 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited; First Defendant: David Hayman; Second Defendant: Gavin Geoffrey Bates (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Geoffrey Ronald Jelbert)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/trusts) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Construction of Conveyancing Documents, Summary Judgment, Registered Land, Boundary Disputes, Root of Title, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence
Property Law Trusts and Estates Bankruptcy Construction of Conveyancing Documents Summary Judgment Registered Land Boundary Disputes Root of Title +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited

Claimant

David Hayman

First Defendant

Gavin Geoffrey Bates (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Geoffrey Ronald Jelbert)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/trusts) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2002 Transfer excluded the Disputed Land so that it was retained by Mr Jelbert
  2. 2 Proper construction of the parcels clause and plan in the 2002 Transfer
  3. 3 Admissibility and relevance of extrinsic evidence and subsequent conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The 2002 Transfer and its plan, construed objectively, did not exclude the Disputed Land from the property transferred to Welshman and subsequently to the claimant. The plan was not sufficiently precise to exclude the Disputed Land, and the only land retained by Mr Jelbert was that expressly defined as 'Retained Land.' Extrinsic evidence and subsequent conduct were inadmissible or not probative. Business common sense also supported the claimant's construction, as otherwise the property would be landlocked.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the only land retained by Mr Jelbert following the 2002 Transfer is the land defined as 'Retained Land' in that transfer.
  • Neither defendant is the legal or beneficial owner of any other land abutting or adjoining the claimant's property.