Ralph v Ralph [2020] EWHC 3348 (QB) (08 December 2020)

Ralph v Ralph [2020] EWHC 3348 (QB) (08 December 2020)

The court held that while a pleaded counterclaim for rectification is normally required, there is no absolute rule preventing rectification or setting aside of an express declaration of trust for mistake if a vitiating factor is sufficiently asserted and adjudicated upon. The judge was entitled to find that the TR1 declaration was completed by mistake and did not reflect the parties' true intention, and to find sole beneficial ownership for the Defendant. Procedural impropriety did not arise, and the Claimant suffered no prejudice. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3348
Parties
Claimant: Dean Ralph; Defendant: David Ralph
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Land, Rectification, Mistake in Conveyancing, Express Declarations of Trust, Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Trusts of Land Rectification Mistake in Conveyancing Express Declarations of Trust Constructive Trust +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dean Ralph

Claimant

David Ralph

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the express declaration of trust in the TR1 form can be impeached for mistake without a pleaded counterclaim for rectification
  2. 2 Whether the judge was entitled to find sole beneficial ownership for the Defendant despite the TR1 declaration
  3. 3 Whether procedural impropriety occurred due to absence of pleaded rectification

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while a pleaded counterclaim for rectification is normally required, there is no absolute rule preventing rectification or setting aside of an express declaration of trust for mistake if a vitiating factor is sufficiently asserted and adjudicated upon. The judge was entitled to find that the TR1 declaration was completed by mistake and did not reflect the parties' true intention, and to find sole beneficial ownership for the Defendant. Procedural impropriety did not arise, and the Claimant suffered no prejudice. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for order for sale dismissed
  • Declaration that property is held beneficially for Defendant alone