Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited v David Hayman & Anor

Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited v David Hayman & Anor

The 2002 Transfer and its plan did not exclude the Disputed Land; only the land defined as 'Retained Land' was retained by Mr Jelbert. The plan and parcels clause were clear and unambiguous, and extrinsic evidence was inadmissible. Business common sense supported the claimant's construction, as retention of the Disputed Land would landlock the property.

Parties
Claimant: Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited; 1st Defendant: David Hayman; 2nd Defendant: Gavin Geoffrey Bates (as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Geoffrey Ronald Jelbert)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment
Outcome
summary judgment granted for claimant
Legal Topics
Construction of Conveyancing Documents, Summary Judgment, Retained Land, Extrinsic Evidence, Business Common Sense
Property Law Conveyancing Bankruptcy Construction of Conveyancing Documents Summary Judgment Retained Land Extrinsic Evidence Business Common Sense

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 6 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrington Homes (Carbis Bay) Limited

Claimant

David Hayman

1st Defendant

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

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2002 Transfer excluded the Disputed Land and retained it 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 did not exclude the Disputed Land; only the land defined as 'Retained Land' was retained by Mr Jelbert. The plan and parcels clause were clear and unambiguous, and extrinsic evidence was inadmissible. Business common sense supported the claimant's construction, as retention of the Disputed Land would landlock the property.

Court Disposition

summary judgment granted for claimant

Orders

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