Mascall v Mascall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Mascall v Mascall | |
|---|---|
 The deed's registration was objected to by the maker with the Land Registry (one of its stone-carved signs is pictured), as is needed to give it guaranteed effect against all third parties | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | William James Mascall v William Mascall |
| Decided | 13 June 1984 |
| Citations | [1984] EWCA Civ 10, (1984) 50 P&CR 119 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Judgment by Edward Nugee Q.C. sitting in the Chancery Division. Claim by the appellant denied. (unreported) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lawton LJ, Browne Wilkinson LJ, Sir Denys Buckley |
| Keywords | |
| |
Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10 was an appeal on formalities in English law. The final, registration stage of a witnessed deed of transfer (of land) is not imperative in all circumstances, the court confirmed. Those circumstances include that there must be no detriment to a third party bona fide purchaser or mortgagee for value without notice; and there must be no fraud or abuse of trust as defined by law. It has wider resonance with the formalities of Trusts in English law.
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]