Price v Saundry & Ors (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 496 (Ch) (07 March 2019)

Price v Saundry & Ors (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 496 (Ch) (07 March 2019)

The evidence did not establish that the inclusion of 7 Linwell Close in the 2006 and 2009 trust deeds was a mistake. Both deeds were professionally drafted and signed by the settlor with the property clearly listed. The defendant failed to provide convincing proof that the deeds did not reflect the parties' intentions at the time. Therefore, rectification was not justified.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 496 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pauline Ann Price; First Defendant: Valerie Ann Saundry; Second Defendant: Geraldine Sanders (as executrix of Martin Gordon Sanders, deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment on Application for Rectification During Trial
Outcome
Application for rectification dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust Deeds, Mistake in Trust Documentation, Trustee and Beneficiary Rights, Business Partnership Property, Laches, Affirmation
Equity Trusts and Estates Rectification of Trust Deeds Mistake in Trust Documentation Trustee and Beneficiary Rights Business Partnership Property Laches Affirmation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Ann Price

Claimant

Valerie Ann Saundry

First Defendant

Geraldine Sanders (as executrix of Martin Gordon Sanders, deceased)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment on Application for Rectification During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trust deeds of 2006 and 2009 should be rectified to remove reference to 7 Linwell Close on grounds of mistake
  2. 2 Whether the deeds were voluntary or for consideration, affecting the test for rectification
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of a mistake justifying rectification

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the inclusion of 7 Linwell Close in the 2006 and 2009 trust deeds was a mistake. Both deeds were professionally drafted and signed by the settlor with the property clearly listed. The defendant failed to provide convincing proof that the deeds did not reflect the parties' intentions at the time. Therefore, rectification was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for rectification dismissed

Orders

  • No rectification of the 2006 and 2009 trust deeds
  • No alteration to the trust property schedule regarding 7 Linwell Close