James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v Cooper Estates Ltd [2005] EWHC 36 (Ch) (20 January 2005)

James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd v Cooper Estates Ltd [2005] EWHC 36 (Ch) (20 January 2005)

The court found that both James Hay and Cooper Estates had a common continuing intention that only the land up to the line CC (as indicated by the highway authority) would be transferred, and that the inclusion of additional land up to line DD was a mistake. There was sufficient outward expression of accord in the correspondence and plans exchanged. Rectification of the transfer and the land register was therefore ordered.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 36 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: James Hay Pension Trustees Limited; Defendant: Cooper Estates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Rectification of Transfer and Land Register / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Instruments, Mistake in Conveyancing, Land Registration, Common Intention
Property Law Equity Rectification of Instruments Mistake in Conveyancing Land Registration Common Intention

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hay Pension Trustees Limited

Claimant

Cooper Estates Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Rectification of Transfer and Land Register / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of land from James Hay to Cooper Estates should be rectified due to a common mistake regarding the boundary of the land transferred
  2. 2 Whether the land register should be rectified consequentially

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both James Hay and Cooper Estates had a common continuing intention that only the land up to the line CC (as indicated by the highway authority) would be transferred, and that the inclusion of additional land up to line DD was a mistake. There was sufficient outward expression of accord in the correspondence and plans exchanged. Rectification of the transfer and the land register was therefore ordered.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Rectification of the transfer plan to reflect the correct boundary (line CC)
  • Rectification of the land register accordingly