Ludlam v Courtman & Anor

A court may determine competing title claims between the parties without making a declaration effective against the whole world. Where the evidence does not safely establish ownership sufficient for registration, the court may nevertheless declare which party has the better title as between the litigants. An injunction requires evidence of a threatened act; a request for examination, without evidence of an intended sale, does not justify an injunction restraining sale.

Caroline Lesley Ludlam applied in existing proceedings for a declaration that she was the beneficial owner of woodland at Somersal Herbert and for an injunction restraining its sale by the trustee in bankruptcy of her husband’s estate. The land had originally been acquired by her husband. Mrs Ludlam relied on alleged gifts, correspondence and title deeds which had later been lost or destroyed. The trustee adopted a defensive and largely neutral position.

The central issues were whether the evidence established that Mrs Ludlam remained owner of the woodland and, if not, whether the court could make a more limited inter partes declaration.

1. Declaration of title. Mrs Ludlam failed to establish, on the evidence, that she remained owner of the woodland in a manner supporting a declaration effective against the rest of the world or entitlement to registration. The evidence did, however, suggest that title deeds had been held in her name or for her benefit between 1992 and 1998, supporting an inference that a gift of her husband’s original beneficial interest had taken place.
2. Inter partes relief. Although the court could not safely determine whether the deeds had subsequently been lost or whether the woodland had been sold, it could determine the relative strength of the parties’ titles. The appropriate order was a declaration that, as between Mrs Ludlam and the trustee, Mrs Ludlam had the better title to the woodland.
3. Injunction. An injunction restraining sale was unnecessary. The evidence showed only that the trustee had requested a private examination concerning the woodland. There was no evidence of an actual or threatened sale.
4. Costs. No order as to costs was made. Mrs Ludlam was not wholly successful, while the trustee had sensibly adopted a minimalist approach to avoid unnecessary expense.

Not stated in the judgment.