Mascall v Mascall
Mascall v Mascall | |
---|---|
Browne Wilkinson LJ, (Sir Denys) Buckley J | |
Keywords | |
|
Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10 was an appeal on
Facts
A father wished to transfer (at an undervalue) land to his son. He made and gave him an executed deed of transfer (and as further show of intent the land certificate). Then they fell out, and the father changed his mind. The son had not yet gone through with the registration at HM Land Registry as the Stamp Office wrongly rejected the transfer, namely sending it to the father who was the party but not the applicant. The father argued that it was still his property.[1]
Judgment
Argument on consideration (value or not passed in exchange for the property):
The judge treated it as common ground the father had no expectation to get £9,000: there was no evidence to that effect. At appeal it was ruled the contrary argument was barred, given the "receipt" for the £9,000 in the transfer deed. Moreover, the evidence showed quite clearly that it was explained to the plaintiff/appellant, the father, before the transaction was carried through that it was being carried through on the basis that he was treated as having received £9,000...it was simply not open to the father, in those circumstances, to raise the question of non payment.
Remaining substantive arguments:
Sir Denys Buckley concurred.
See also
References
- ^ a b [1984] EWCA Civ 10, (1984) 50 P&CR 119