Analysis
A house was purchased in the joint names of the defendant and his son, the claimant. At least part of the reason for the claimant’s inclusion was that it allowed the defendant to benefit from a mortgage needed to finance the purchase. The TR1 bore an ‘X’ in Box 11 which appeared next to the words ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant sought a declaration that the property was held as described by Box 11 and an order for sale. The defendant maintained in a number of witness statements that the ticking of Box 11 was made under a common mistake, and that the parties never intended common beneficial ownership, however, he did not file a formal counterclaim based on any such purported mistake. At first instance the judge concluded that the ticking of Box 11 was a consequence of a common mistake and that the property was held beneficially for the defendant alone.
The claimant appealed, on a number of grounds. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that, as a matter of law, there is no absolute rule that the court will not rectify a document in the absence of a formal or pleaded claim for rectification. Nor is it necessary that an order for rectification or rescission be made before the court can go behind an express declaration of trust – it was sufficient that the defendant has raised a vitiating factor and a ground for impeaching the validity of the express declaration. Nor was there any procedural impropriety in allowing a claim for mistake to be advanced in the absence of any such formal or pleaded claims, no prejudice having been caused to the claimant in this case. It was not necessary for there to have been a positive intention to leave the box indicating joint equitable ownership blank, it was sufficient that the parties had simply not reached an agreement as to beneficial ownership. The evidence before the court had been sufficient to justify its determination that the defendant was the sole beneficial owner under either a resulting or constructive trust. There was no reason on the facts that the judge should have declined to exercise his discretion to rectify the TR1.
JUDGMENT MR JUSTICE MORRIS: [1] This is an appeal against the order of HHJ Monty QC sitting at Central London County Court dated 6 January 2020 (‘the Order’). By the Order, the judge dismissed the claim of Dean Ralph (‘the Claimant’ or ‘Dean’) against David Ralph (‘the Defendant’ or ‘David’) for a declaration as to …Continue reading "Ralph v Ralph WTLR(w) 2021-04"