Hancock v Woods [2002] EWCA Civ 373 (22 February 2002)

Hancock v Woods [2002] EWCA Civ 373 (22 February 2002)

The judge found that the parties intended for Mr Hancock to receive only No 20A and for Ms Woods to retain No 20. The findings of fact at trial were unassailable, and there was no good reason why the new valuation evidence was not adduced at trial. The requirements for admitting fresh evidence on appeal were not met, and there was no basis to challenge the judge's exercise of discretion in declining to alter the register.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 373
Parties
Applicant: Robert Hancock; Respondent: Ms Woods
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (with Application for Permission to Reinstate) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Land Register, Forgery of Transfer, Trusts, Appeals Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Rectification of Land Register Forgery of Transfer Trusts Appeals Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hancock

Applicant

Ms Woods

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (with Application for Permission to Reinstate) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the register of title should be rectified to show Mr Hancock as proprietor of No 20 Beaufort Street
  2. 2 Whether Mr Hancock's signature on the transfer was a forgery
  3. 3 Whether new valuation evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the parties intended for Mr Hancock to receive only No 20A and for Ms Woods to retain No 20. The findings of fact at trial were unassailable, and there was no good reason why the new valuation evidence was not adduced at trial. The requirements for admitting fresh evidence on appeal were not met, and there was no basis to challenge the judge's exercise of discretion in declining to alter the register.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed