Jones & Anor v. Wood & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSIH_31 (18 March 2005)

Jones & Anor v. Wood & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSIH_31 (18 March 2005)

The minuter did not have knowledge of the defectively expressed terms of the pursuers' disposition, did not act in reliance on those terms, and his position was not affected to a material extent by such reliance. Therefore, he does not qualify for protection under section 9 and cannot resist rectification.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSIH_31
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Alan Jones; Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Brenda Maureen Jones; Defender/respondent: Andrew Stuart Wood; Defender/respondent: Mrs Margaret Wood; Minuter/appellant: John Derek Thomson Bogie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rectification of Title, Reliance Under Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985, Third Party Protection, Land Register Rectification
Property Law Conveyancing Statutory Interpretation Rectification of Title Reliance Under Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985 Third Party Protection Land Register Rectification

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Jones

Pursuer/respondent

Mrs Brenda Maureen Jones

Pursuer/respondent

Andrew Stuart Wood

Defender/respondent

Mrs Margaret Wood

Defender/respondent

John Derek Thomson Bogie

Minuter/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minuter/appellant qualifies for protection under section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 as a third party relying on defectively expressed title
  2. 2 Whether the minuter acted in reliance on the terms of the disposition sought to be rectified
  3. 3 Whether the minuter's position was affected to a material extent by such reliance

Ratio Decidendi

The minuter did not have knowledge of the defectively expressed terms of the pursuers' disposition, did not act in reliance on those terms, and his position was not affected to a material extent by such reliance. Therefore, he does not qualify for protection under section 9 and cannot resist rectification.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Amend sheriff's interlocutor of 27 October 2003 by deleting the word 'Summary'
  • Adhere quoad ultra to the interlocutor