Yeates v Line

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Kevin Prosser QC
Judgment Date12 November 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: CH/2012/0237
CourtChancery Division
Date12 November 2012
Chancery Division Yeates and another v Line and another [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch) 2012 Oct 9; Nov 12 Kevin Prosser QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Contract - Validity - Oral agreement - Oral agreement to compromise dispute as to title to land - Agreement having disposing effect but not disposing purpose - Whether agreement “for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land” - Whether valid contract - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c 34), s 2(1)

The applicants applied to alter the register of title of a parcel of land on the ground that they had acquired title by adverse possession. The respondents objected to the application. The deputy adjudicator decided that the applicants had acquired title by adverse possession, but she went on to find that the parties had reached an oral agreement to compromise their dispute and that the agreement was a legally binding contract amounting to “exceptional circumstances”, within the meaning of paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002F1, which justified not altering the register. She accordingly directed the registrar to cancel the application. The applicants appealed on the ground that the compromise agreement was void because it did not comply with section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989F2 which provided that “a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing”.

On the appeal—

Held, dismissing the appeal, that an oral agreement to demarcate an unclear boundary which had a disposing effect was not void by virtue of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 unless it had a disposing purpose and more than a trivial amount of land was disposed of; that section 2(1) made no distinction between demarcation agreements and other types of agreement and a compromise agreement was no more than an example of an agreement which did not fall foul of section 2(1) because it did not have a disposing purpose even if it had a disposing effect; and that, accordingly, the compromise agreement was not an agreement “for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land” within the meaning of section 2(1) and, despite being oral, was a valid contract (post, paras 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 38).

Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79, CA applied.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment:

Joyce v Rigolli [2004] EWCA Civ 79, CA

Melhuish v Fishburn [2008] EWCA Civ 1382, CA

Neilson v Poole (1969) 20 P & CR 909

Pittalis v Grant [1989] QB 605; [1989] 3 WLR 139; [1989] 2 All ER 622, CA

The following additional case was cited in argument:

Steadman v Steadman [1974] QB 161; [1973] WLR 695; [1973] 3 All ER 977, CA

The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:

Atkinson and Horsell’s Contract, In re [1912] 2 Ch 1, CA

Knights Construction (March) Ltd v Roberto Mac Ltd [2011] 2 EGLR 123

Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch); [2010] 1 P & CR 308

APPEAL from the deputy adjudicator to HM Land Registry

In January 2011 the applicants, Derek James Yeates and Teresa Ann Yeates, applied to the Chief Land Registrar to alter the register by removing certain land from the title of the respondents, Denise Jane Line and Brett Elliott Field, and adding it to the applicants’ title, on the basis of a mistake. By a decision dated 1 March 2012 the deputy adjudicator to the Land Registry, Stephanie Tozer, held that the requisite 12-year period of adverse possession had been made out, and that prima facie the register should have been altered, but found that the parties had reached a binding oral agreement compromising the dispute which amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying not making the alteration sought, and directed the registrar to cancel the application.

By an appellant’s notice and with permission of Peter Smith J the applicants appealed pursuant to section 111 of the Land Registration Act 2002 on the ground that the adjudicator should have held that the agreement was void because it did not comply with the requirement that a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land had to be in writing pursuant to section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. At the beginning of the hearing Kevin Prosser QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, granted the applicants permission to argue the point raised under section 2(1) of the 1989 Act for the first time on appeal.

The facts are stated in the judgment.

Samuel Laughton (instructed by Coleman & Betts, Kingston upon Thames) for the applicants.

The respondents in person.

The court took time for consideration.

12 November 2012. KEVIN PROSSER QC handed down the following judgment.

A. Introduction

1 This is an appeal under section 111 of the Land Registration Act 2002 against a decision dated 1 March 2012 of Miss Stephanie Tozer, sitting as deputy adjudicator to the Land Registry (“the adjudicator”). The appellants, Mr and Mrs Yeates, were represented by counsel, Mr Laughton (who did not appear below), and the respondents, Ms Line and Mr Field, appeared in person.

2 In January 2011 the appellants applied to the Chief Land Registrar to alter the register of title pursuant to the power conferred by Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act, by registering them as proprietors of a triangular parcel of land measuring about 34 metres by 24 metres at its widest point (“the blue land”), on the ground that the appellants had acquired title to the blue land by adverse possession. The respondents, who were the registered proprietors of the blue land and also the owners of the adjoining land to the north, objected to the application. The dispute was referred to the adjudicator.

3 The adjudicator decided that the appellants had indeed acquired title to the blue land by adverse possession, but she decided not to direct alteration of the register, because she found that the parties had reached an oral agreement to compromise their dispute, and she held that this agreement was a legally binding contract amounting to exceptional circumstances which justified not altering the register: see paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act. Instead, the adjudicator directed the registrar to cancel the application.

4 The appellants appeal against the adjudicator’s decision on the ground that the oral compromise agreement was void because it fell foul of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 which provides as follows:

“A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”

5 The section 2(1) point was not raised before the adjudicator. Peter Smith J granted permission to appeal, subject to the question whether the appellants should be permitted to take the section 2(1) point for the first time on appeal. I will consider that question after setting out the facts.

B. Facts

6 At paras 18 and 44–50 of the decision, the adjudicator made the following findings about the compromise agreement.

7 The parties met over the Easter 2011 weekend, without solicitors present, to discuss the blue land, exchange information and negotiate. They walked to the blue land together and looked at various plans. Mr Field, the second respondent, explained that he wanted to erect a fence across the blue land (between points A and B1 on the plan annexed to the decision). Mrs Yeates, the second appellant, indicated that she accepted that it did look from the plans as though the blue land could be the respondents’, and also said that the blue land was of little significance to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rollerteam Ltd and Another v Riley
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 December 2016
    ...land"." 43 For completeness, I should also mention the decision of Mr Kevin Prosser QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, in Yeates v Line [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch), [2013] Ch 363. The issue in that case was whether an oral agreement to compromise a boundary dispute was invalidated ......
  • Stephen Wayne Gibson v Philip New
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 1 July 2021
    ...relation to the latter point, Mr Loveday cited various cases, including Neilson v Poole (Megarry J) at 919 (quoted in Yeates v Line [2012] EWHC 3085 (Ch) at [23]): “I must, too, bear in mind that a boundary agreement is, in its nature, an act of peace, quieting strife and averting litigati......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT