Charles Edward Porter and another (Respondents) v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased) (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2021/0032

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Robert Stokes

Respondent(s)

Charles Edward Porter

Mary Bernadette Porter

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the High Court's decision to reject a claim for rectification of a deed on the ground of common mistake?

Facts

This appeal concerns a claim to rectify a deed of conveyance of land. In May 1982 Walter Stokes (now deceased) entered into an agreement for the sale of certain land to Mr and Mrs Porter. The agreement was for the sale of two parcels of land: a main parcel; and a second smaller strip of land between the main parcel and the road described as a "right of way." They subsequently executed a deed of conveyance on 18 August 1982. However, the deed only conveyed the main parcel to the Porters. The smaller strip was not conveyed to the Porters, but the deed purported to reserve a right of way across it in favour of Walter Stokes.In 2006 the Porters claimed that the deed contained a mistake and that the true intentions of the parties to the deed had been to convey both parcels of land, in accordance with the May 1982 agreement. They therefore sought rectification of the deed on the grounds of common mistake. Walter Stokes' son Robert Stokes (as personal representative of his late father's estate) denied that there had been a mistake in the deed, he said that Walter Stokes had never intended to sell the smaller strip. He said that it was the May 1982 agreement that contained a mistake, which had been corrected when the deed was made. The High Court dismissed the Porters' claim. The judge found that Walter Stokes had only intended to convey the main parcel and rejected the Porters' evidence as to the parties' intentions. The Porters appealed.The Court of Appeal found that the judge had made several errors when considering the evidence. It considered that the judge focussed too much on the oral evidence, given after a substantial passage of time, and paid insufficient heed to the documentary evidence, in particular the deed itself. It therefore considered it was entitled to look at the matter afresh. The Court of Appeal found that the agreement for sale and the deed taken as a whole, including in particular the reservation of the right of way to Walter Stokes over the strip, led to the conclusion that the parties' common intention was to convey both parcels of land. It therefore allowed the Porters' appeal.Robert Stokes was granted final leave to appeal to the Privy Council on 21 February 2021.

Date of issue

12 April 2021

Judgment details

Judgment date

30 March 2023

Neutral citation

[2023] UKPC 11

Judgment links

Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Kitchin

Lord Sales

Lord Burrows

Lady Rose

Hearing dates

Start date

1 March 2023

End date

1 March 2023

Watch hearings

Back to top