Wilson and another v Truelove and another
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2003] 23 EG 136-139(4)Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: ChD, 21 February 2003. Claimants (W) purchased the freehold of a farm from a company controlled by defendants (T). Cl3 of the contract gave T the right in certain circumstances to re-purchase the property with no time limit prescribed for the exercise of the right. W made application to vacate the land charge in respect of the right to re-purchase, arguing that the right was void and of no effect by reason of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 s9(2). T argued that if the right was void, the contract must be rectified, alternatively W were estopped from relying on s9(2) of the Act. "Held" claim allowed and the registration of the land charge vacated. W were not estopped from relying on s9(2) to avoid a right of re-purchase unlimited in time and there was no case for rectifying the contract.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS66555 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121788-1001 |
ChD, 21 February 2003. Claimants (W) purchased the freehold of a farm from a company controlled by defendants (T). Cl3 of the contract gave T the right in certain circumstances to re-purchase the property with no time limit prescribed for the exercise of the right. W made application to vacate the land charge in respect of the right to re-purchase, arguing that the right was void and of no effect by reason of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 s9(2). T argued that if the right was void, the contract must be rectified, alternatively W were estopped from relying on s9(2) of the Act. "Held" claim allowed and the registration of the land charge vacated. W were not estopped from relying on s9(2) to avoid a right of re-purchase unlimited in time and there was no case for rectifying the contract.