- TR1 declaration of trust—absence of agreement insufficient for rectification (Ralph v Ralph)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: The Court of Appeal allowed a second appeal against an order for the rectification of an HM Land Registry transfer form TR1 because the trial judge had not found a ‘continuing common intention’ for the form to contain no declaration of beneficial ownership, but only a lack of discussions or agreement between the purchasers as to such ownership. Drawing a distinction between the ‘absence of agreement’ and an ‘actual agreement’, the court held that the former could not be equated with the latter for the purposes of rectification because: ‘The law does not make contracts for people unless they have…agreed to them or shown a continuing common intention as to the term or terms in issue.’ The decision adopted the subjective test for ‘common intention’ set out in FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp Ltd but did not decide whether, in the case of a TR1, it was also necessary for the parties to have communicated their respective intentions. Written by Clifford Darton QC, Selborne Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial