Jess Harrold is joined by Clifford Darton QC and George Woodhead, both of Selborne Chambers, to explain the recent Court of Appeal decision in Ralph v Ralph [2021] EWCA Civ 1106; [2021] PLSCS 135 - a case involving an application for rectification of the Land Register.
Darton and Woodhead, who acted for the successful appellant, outline the facts of this father-and-son dispute that arose after a cross was entered in a box on the TR1 form stating that they were to hold the property "on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares”.
Together they summarise how the Court of Appeal decided the case, and the requirements for rectification of the register.
In addition, they consider the wider implications for cohabiting homeowners - including detailed analysis of two unanswered questions left by Ralph that are ripe for further litigation in future.
Most cases concerning rectification for common mistake relate to commercial contracts. But the question that arose in was whether a Land Registry form TR1, signed by the transferors, but not by the transferees, should be rectified to remove a manuscript cross from the box stating that “the transferees are to hold the property
The trial judge took the view that neither of the transferees had ever intended that they should be joint owners in equity. They were father and son – and the son was a party to the purchase in 2000 because his father could not obtain a mortgage advance on his income alone. He did not contribute to the purchase price, or to the mortgage repayments, and it was wholly improbable that his father was gifting half of the property to him – thereby excluding any interest which his siblings or their mother might otherwise have in that share and giving him an immediate right to an occupation rent from his parents. It followed that the son did not have any beneficial interest in the property, which was held for his father alone.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free