Taylor v Couch [2012] EWHC 1213 (Ch) (01 March 2012)

Taylor v Couch [2012] EWHC 1213 (Ch) (01 March 2012)

The perpetuity period for the option/right of pre-emption created by clause 17 of the 1984 agreement began on the date of the agreement (14 December 1984), and expired 21 years later. The claimant's purported exercise of the option in August 2009 was outside this period, rendering the right void for remoteness under section 9(2) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1213 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Joseph Taylor; Defendant: David Simon Couch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Property/contract / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Against Perpetuities, Options to Purchase, Rights of Pre Emption, Land Registration
Property Law Contract Law Rule Against Perpetuities Options to Purchase Rights of Pre Emption Land Registration

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Joseph Taylor

Claimant

David Simon Couch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Property/contract / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the option/right of pre-emption in clause 17 of the 1984 agreement is void for remoteness under the rule against perpetuities
  2. 2 When the perpetuity period begins for such rights under the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964

Ratio Decidendi

The perpetuity period for the option/right of pre-emption created by clause 17 of the 1984 agreement began on the date of the agreement (14 December 1984), and expired 21 years later. The claimant's purported exercise of the option in August 2009 was outside this period, rendering the right void for remoteness under section 9(2) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for specific performance refused
  • No remedy for enforcement of option/right of pre-emption