ABSTRACT

Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770, p 775 Harman J: It was admitted before me that the class of persons claiming under the will of which the vendor Wilks was a trustee was not closed, and might embrace infants or persons unborn, and that, for a number of years at any rate, it would be impossible to say with certainty that no claim could arise to upset the transaction, although hitherto in fact no claim has been made. This is clearly a serious blot on the title, and not one that can be described with any propriety as a technical defect. There is a real danger that anyone acquiring this property with notice may be dispossessed of it hereafter. A beneficiary claiming to have the property restored to the trust must agree that the original purchase money paid by Colonel Wilks and, in addition, money spent in improvements shall be repaid. That sum was assumed here to amount to £2,500. I ought to say that the defect in title does not extend to the further plot purchased by the plaintiff in 1951, but that plot by itself is of no greater value than the amount that the plaintiff paid for it.