Graham and others v Mayrick: ChD 23 Mar 2006

The claimants sought specific performance of a compromise agreement with the defendant after a dispute over a strip of land. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimants had shown satisfactory title.
Held: ‘It has long been established that although the description of the property may be vague, if it contains sufficient internal information to enable the property to be ascertained, parol evidence should be admissible for that purpose’.
Hart J
[2006] EWHC 574 (Ch)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1)
England and Wales
CitedSmirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd ChD 1975
The court considered the doctrine that a tenant acquiring title to land by adverse possession, did so on behalf of hs landlord.
Held: The cases demonstrated that ‘the law . . has got into something of a tangle’, but the doctrine, at least as . .
CitedSmirk v Lyndale Developments Ltd CA 2-Jan-1975
Judgment upheld . .
CitedMcCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-1996
The parties entered into a written contract for the sale of land which, in error, provided for completion on a Sunday. The parties varied the date to the Friday but did not execute a new contract which would comply with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act. . .

Cited by:
CitedGraham and Others v Mayrick CA 1-Jun-2006
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Appeal fromTrustees In the Charity of Sir John Morden v Mayrick; Graham v Mayrick CA 12-Jan-2007
The claimant had owned tracts of land in London for very many years, but the title deeds had been lost. The defendant had purchased a part from a company who had in turn purchased from the claimants, but the parties disputed an adjacent strip of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.240016