Hilary Term [2023] UKPC 11 - Privy Council Appeal No 0032 of 2021 - Judgment

Aug 20, 2026

Judgment in a Privy Council appeal arising from a conveyancing dispute in Trinidad and Tobago over a landlocked parcel and an access strip. The core issue concerns rectification of a 1982 deed after the omission of the strip from the land conveyed. The dispute traces earlier contract terms, subsequent probate succession, and competing accounts of mistake, including reliance on oral evidence versus surviving documents.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time53 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Background conveyancing and access strip

Trial and Court of Appeal history

The Parties' Cases

Porters' reliance on contract and deed indications

Robert Stokes' mistake and prescription position

Subsidiary issues

Documents

Chronological description of key documents

Hilary Term [2023] UKPC 11 Privy Council Appeal No 0032 of 2021 JUDGMENT Charles Edward Porter and another (Respondents) v Robert Stokes (Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter Edward Stokes, deceased) (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord Briggs Lord Kitchin Lord Sales Lord Burrows Lady Rose JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 30 March 2023 Heard on 1 March 2023 Appellant Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC Robert Strang Katharine Bailey (Instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP (London)) Respondents Ian Benjamin SCKerwyn Garcia (Instructed by Signature Litigation LLP (London)) LORD BRIGGS: Introduction 1. By a Deed of conveyance dated 18th August 1982 (“the Deed”) Mr and Mrs Porter acquired a parcel of land (“the main parcel”), lying between the Maracas river to the west and the Maracas Royal Road to the east, from their good friend and neighbour Walter Stokes. The main parcel was separated from the Royal Road mainly by land retained by Walter Stokes (“the retained land”) . The only means of access to the main parcel from the Royal Road (or from any other public highway) was along astrip of land (“the strip”) running along the southern boundary of the retained land, connecting the south-east corner of the main parcel with the Royal Road. Although it was already in use for that purpose at the time of the Porters’ acquisition of the main parcel, the strip was neither conveyed to the Porters by the Deed, nor was any right of way over it granted to them. 2. This curiosity, that the Porters had apparently acquired a landlocked parcel of land with no right of way to or from it, remained apparently unnoticed by either side for the following 24 years, in the sense that it was not mentioned in any surviving document. The strip remained in use as a de facto means of access both to the main parcel and to the retained land, with no complaint by either side. In the meantime Walter Stokes had died in April 1990, and his estate (including the retained land) vested in his son Robert Stokes pursuant to a grant of probate in July 1990. 3. But in February 2006 the Porters’ attorneys wrote to Robert Stokes suggesting that the Deed had by mistake omitted to include the strip as part of the land conveyed, and inviting him to execute a deed of rectification to put that mistake right. Robert’s refusal to do so led to this claim by the Porters for rectification of the Deed, issued in October 2007 and tried by Charles J in November 2012. Charles J, in her judgment in December 2013, dismissed the claim. This was followed by an appeal heard in October 2018 by Bereaux, Jamadar and Pemberton JJA, leading to their unanimous decision in June 2019 to reverse the judge and make the order for rectification sought by the Porters. The Parties’ Cases 4. In bare outline the parties’ cases at trial were as follows. The Porters relied upon a prior binding agreement for sale dated 15th May 1982 (“the Contract”) which included the strip as part of the land agreed to be sold. They also relied upon indications in the Deed and its accompanying plan which suggested that, apart from the mistaken exclusion of the strip by the omission of three key words, it was intended to be included. In particular they relied upon the express reservation in the Deed of a right of way over the strip in favour of Walter Stokes, for the benefit of the retained land, which made no sense if he was not parting with the strip. 5. Robert Stokes’ case was that the Contract was itself the result of a mistake in including the strip. That mistake was spotted by Robert Stokes after the Contract was made and, to put the matter right, the Contract was allowed to expire unperformed, followed by the execution of the Deed which correctly excluded the strip from the land being conveyed. Robert acknowledged that the Porters enjoyed a right of way along the strip to the main parcel, not by virtue of the Deed, but

FAQs

What was the main dispute in this appeal?

Whether the 1982 deed should be rectified because the access strip was mistakenly omitted from the land conveyed to the Porters.

What did the Porters rely on to support rectification?

A prior binding contract that included the strip, plus indications in the deed and accompanying plan suggesting the strip was intended to be included, including the reserved right of way.

How did Robert Stokes explain the strip’s inclusion and omission?

He argued the contract itself resulted from a mistake, that it was allowed to expire unperformed, and that the later deed correctly excluded the strip; he also accepted a right of way by prescription.

Aug 20, 2026

Upload by Olivia Brown