Eastaugh v Crisp & Ors

A conveyance of land by an individual is ineffective to create a legal estate unless executed as a deed. A document containing only the words “signed, sealed and delivered” is insufficient where nothing indicates that sealing occurred. An unregistered estate contract is void against a purchaser for money or money’s worth under the Land Charges Act 1972.

For adverse possession, factual possession and an intention to possess are distinct requirements. A belief that the occupier is a tenant or already owns the land does not itself prevent the necessary intention. Possession must be continuous for the limitation period. A tenant’s denial of the landlord’s title amounts to repudiation only where the tenant clearly and unambiguously demonstrates that he will no longer be bound by the tenancy.

The claimant claimed interests in land forming part of Three Gates Farm and challenged titles obtained by the defendants from administrators of the estates of two deceased brothers. He relied on a 1977 conveyance and will concerning field 28, adverse possession, and an existing 1972 lease over other land.

The defendants counterclaimed for rent, damages for breaches of covenant and forfeiture of the lease. The court had to determine the validity and effect of the 1977 documents, the adverse-possession claim, estoppel, denial of title, arrears and breaches of covenant, and relief from forfeiture.

1. 1977 conveyance. The conveyance was authentic and sufficiently certain. Its field number and acreage supplied the primary definition of the land. However, under section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, it was ineffective to convey the legal estate because the document contained no indication that sealing had occurred beyond the words “signed, sealed and delivered”. The estoppel argument failed because reliance had neither been pleaded nor proved. The resulting specifically enforceable contract was an estate contract within section 2(4) of the Land Charges Act 1972. Since it was unregistered, section 4(6) made it void against the defendants as purchasers for money or money’s worth.
2. 1977 will. The evidence rebutted the presumption of due execution arising from the attestation clause. The witnesses had not witnessed Edward’s signature or acknowledgment in his presence. The probate action was therefore dismissed.
3. Adverse possession. Applying Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, factual possession and an intention to possess were established in relation to field 28 from 1978 to 2000. The claimant’s beliefs about tenancy or ownership did not prevent the necessary intention. The claim concerning Edward’s cottage and garden failed because the 1978 tenancy and the limitation provisions postponed the relevant accrual of the right of action.
4. Estoppel. The defendants had no clear and unequivocal representation on which they could reasonably rely concerning ownership of field 28. They took a calculated risk by proceeding with the purchase.
5. Forfeiture. The pleadings did not amount to a denial of title. They questioned the defendants’ title and the identity of the correct landlord, while remaining consistent with the existence of the tenancy. The claim for forfeiture nevertheless succeeded for non-payment of rent and breaches of the covenants for good husbandry and against sub-letting. Relief was refused because the claimant could not demonstrate an ability to pay the arrears, compensation and relevant costs.
6. The claimant obtained title to field 28 by adverse possession, rectification of the relevant register and nominal trespass damages of £50. The defendants obtained judgment for £1,798.44 rent arrears and an inquiry as to damages for covenant breaches.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no appeal or earlier decision.