Thomas & Anor v GT Pryce (Farms) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1111 (05 July 2005)

Thomas & Anor v GT Pryce (Farms) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1111 (05 July 2005)

The contract for the sale of Lot II, as defined by the plan and Ordinance Survey numbers, included the whole of OS 3634, and thus the disputed buildings and land. There was no convincing evidence of a common intention to exclude the buildings from Lot II, nor any communication of such intention between the parties. Rectification was therefore not available. The appeal was allowed, and the contract was to be specifically performed in accordance with its terms, with an abatement of price for land already conveyed to a third party.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1111
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr David Thomas; Appellant/claimant: Mr Christopher Thomas; Respondent/defendant: GT Pryce (Farms) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; extensions of time granted to both parties.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rectification of Contract, Construction of Contract, Sale of Land, Auction Sales
Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Rectification of Contract Construction of Contract Sale of Land Auction Sales

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Thomas

Appellant/claimant

Mr Christopher Thomas

Appellant/claimant

GT Pryce (Farms) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale of land included certain farm buildings and land in Lot II or excluded them as per the auction particulars and plan.
  2. 2 Whether rectification of the contract should be granted to reflect the alleged common intention of the parties regarding the boundary and inclusion/exclusion of the buildings.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for the sale of Lot II, as defined by the plan and Ordinance Survey numbers, included the whole of OS 3634, and thus the disputed buildings and land. There was no convincing evidence of a common intention to exclude the buildings from Lot II, nor any communication of such intention between the parties. Rectification was therefore not available. The appeal was allowed, and the contract was to be specifically performed in accordance with its terms, with an abatement of price for land already conveyed to a third party.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; extensions of time granted to both parties.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the County Court order set aside.
  • Land outside of SL149305 to be transferred to the appellant with an abatement of price.