A High court case has provided a reminder of its interpretation of deed delivery and the limits of rescission for mistakes in the context of family arrangements over inherited property.
The case arose from the estate of Brigitte Genevieve Maghoo, whose Fulham property sold for £1.765 million. Her will divided the residuary estate into three equal shares, one passing to her daughter, Marie Gauchenot. Following the funeral in August 2021, the Claimant, Jean Michel Canarapen, and Defendant Marie Gauchenot—nephew and aunt—reconnected after years of estrangement. Initially, discussions focused on preserving the property within the family and in November 2021, Gauchenot consulted solicitors about gifting her share to her nephew, and a Deed of Variation was drafted. By mid-2022, the Canarapen proposed purchasing the property using mortgage finance supplemented by the Defendant’s one-third share as a deposit.
By July 2022, the Claimant had begun steps toward purchase, including incorporating a company and seeking planning permission. Probate was granted on 24 September 2022. On 10 October 2022, the Defendant emailed the Claimant an “Executed Deed of Variation” and the will—an act the Claimant contended constituted delivery. Shortly thereafter, relations soured. The Defendant objected to proposed structural changes and, on 22 November 2022, purported to revoke the Deed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and offering instead an interest-free loan. The property was ultimately sold on the open market, with one-third of the proceeds held pending resolution of this dispute. Gauchenot purported to revoke the deed, alleging misrepresentation and mistake.
At trial, Master Pester was asked to determine whether the deed had been delivered, whether it could be set aside for mistake, and whether Gauchenot could amend her defence to plead conditional delivery.
The court held that the deed was validly delivered. Applying s.1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and citing Vincent v Premo [1969] 2 QB 609, Master Pester emphasised delivery does not require physical handover but an act evincing an intention to be bound. Correspondence, including an email title ‘Executed Deed of Variation’ and absence of caveats were decisive. The Defendant’s awareness that the deed would be used to secure mortgage finance reinforced the finding. Later attempts to revoke were treated as recognition of its binding effect
Gauchenot’s counterclaim to rescind the deed failed. The alleged mistake—that the property would remain a family home or provide her lifelong occupation—was unsupported by contemporaneous documents and inconsistent with her conduct, including exploring a Chelsea flat purchase. Master Pester applied Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26, finding no causative mistake of sufficient gravity and noting that the case involved a misprediction rather than a mistake.
In a final ‘hail mary’ on the final day of the trial Gauchenot sought to plead that delivery was conditional on probate and confirmation of sale to Canarapen. The court refused, citing extreme lateness, prejudice to the claimant, and lack of reasonable argument. Even if conditional, delivery in escrow does not permit unilateral revocation
The court granted the Claimant’s declaration that the Deed was valid and binding, dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim, and refused permission to amend. While costs were reserved for separate determination, Master Pester noted the Defendant’s shifting case and late amendment application as factors likely to influence any costs order.
