Taylor v Couch

Taylor v Couch

The perpetuity period under section 9(2) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 began on the date of the 1984 agreement, and expired before the claimant purported to exercise the option. Both the option and the right of pre-emption are subject to the 21-year period, which is measured from the date of the disposition, not from when the right becomes exercisable. Therefore, the claimant's right was void for remoteness at the time of exercise.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Joseph Taylor; Defendant: David Simon Couch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Against Perpetuities, Options to Purchase Land, Rights of Pre Emption, Specific Performance
Property Law Rule Against Perpetuities Options to Purchase Land Rights of Pre Emption Specific Performance

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Joseph Taylor

Claimant

David Simon Couch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right conferred by clause 17 of the 1984 agreement is void for remoteness under the rule against perpetuities
  2. 2 Whether the perpetuity period began at the date of the agreement or when the right became exercisable
  3. 3 Whether clause 17 confers an option, a right of pre-emption, or both, and the legal consequences thereof

Ratio Decidendi

The perpetuity period under section 9(2) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 began on the date of the 1984 agreement, and expired before the claimant purported to exercise the option. Both the option and the right of pre-emption are subject to the 21-year period, which is measured from the date of the disposition, not from when the right becomes exercisable. Therefore, the claimant's right was void for remoteness at the time of exercise.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed