A father had granted an option over land to his son, but it had not been registered. The father later tried to frustrate the option by conveying the land to his wife for 500 pounds. The land was worth 40,000 pounds. When the son found out about it, he sought to exercise the option, and then sued his father and his deceased mother’s estate for specific performance, as well as for damages for conspiracy by his parents. Oliver J held that the sale to the mother was a genuine sale and was not a sham, she was ‘a purchaser of a legal estate for money or money’s worth’ against whom the unregistered option was void under section 13(2) of the Land Charges Act 1925. It followed that the claim for specific performance against the mother’s estate failed. The son appealed.
Held: The House restored Oliver J’s judgment. The mother was a person against whom the option was void for non-registration. The transaction was not a sham. In a ‘pure’ registration system, notice is irrelevant; this has the advantage that intending purchasers are relieved of the burden of making exhaustive enquiries. There is nothing wrong with a party seeking to benefit from the technical effects of the registration regime and the consequences of a failure of a person to protect himself under it.
Lord Wilberforce
[1981] AC 513, [1980] UKHL 7
Bailii
Land Charges Act 1925 13(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited by:
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2) ChD 12-May-2004
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant . .
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc ChD 17-Jun-2005
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An . .
Cited – Coles and others (Trustees of the Ward Green Working Mens Club) v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (Unltd Company) and Another CA 29-Nov-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land under the exercise of an option agreement. The defendant had conveyed the land to a subsidiary in order to defeat the option.
Held: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.199474
