References: [1997] EWCA Civ 2095
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
This case cites:

• Cited – Outram v Morewood ((1803) 3 East 346, [1803] 102 ER 630, Commonlii, [1803] EngR 498)
  Where a fact or title had been put at issue between the parties in an action for trespass, the ensuing verdict creates an estoppel preventing the same parties relitigating that fact or title. Of a finding of trespass, in relation to some coal lying . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 23 October 2018
Ref: 142492

The post Hamilton v Weston: CA 14 Jul 1997 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1997] EWCA Civ 2650
Links: Bailii
Coram: Hirst, Swinton Thomas and Mantell LJJ
Ratio: The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as agreed in principle, and that he bought stock and farm implements on that basis. However, no terms were agreed and no rent was agreed either. The claimant appealed.
Held: Crabb v. Arun DC was described as the ‘leading modern authority’. The appellant’s upheld submission was: ‘since the measure of expectation or belief is the maximum extent of the equity, it is incumbent on Mr William, in order to satisfy the test, not only to establish an expectation or belief that he would be granted a full agricultural tenancy, but also to show that such expectation of belief was of sufficiently concrete character to enable the court to give effect to it when fixing the rent and the rent review regime, and making provision for dilapidations, for the repairing covenant, and for other crucial terms.’ ‘ . . even if one were to assume that the first of the judge’s two findings stood intact, and that Mr William did have a firm expectation based on a clear understanding in 1989 that Mr William would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, one asks inevitably, an expectation of such a tenancy on what terms? In seeking to answer that question I think that unfortunately Mr William runs into insuperable difficulties, since, as the judge recognised in the same passage in the first part of his judgment, the matter was not discussed in any detail, whereas to my mind the detail was all important, yet so many potentially insoluble problems were left up in the air.’
This case cites:

• Approved – Crabb v Arun District Council CA ([1976] Ch 179, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1975] EWCA Civ 7)
  The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
  Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Parker v Parker ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch))
  Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
  Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 24 October 2018
Ref: 143049

The post William John Perry Orgee v William John Neil Orgee: CA 5 Nov 1997 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1997] EWCA Civ 2962, [1997] EG 174, [1998] 1 EGLR 69, [1998] 17 EG 144, [1998] L and TR 1
Links: Bailii
Coram: Beldam, Hutchison, Mummery LJJ
Ratio: The court was asked: ‘whether a company which has granted a lease of business premises in circumstances which would ordinarily mean that the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘the Act’) applied can invoke s. 24 A of that Act even though it did not have title to the premises the subject of the lease at the time of the demise. Put rather more widely, the question is whether a tenant by estoppel of business premises can invoke the protection of the Act.’
Mummery LJ said: ‘the juristic basis and the legal effect of the estoppel doctrine were authoritatively expounded in the Court of Exchequer by Martin B in Cuthbertson v Irving . . in terms applicable to this case . . The result is also consistent with the legal effect of the satellite doctrine of ‘feeding the estoppel’ . . which applies when an interest in the land is acquired by the person deficient in title at the time of the grant from which the estoppel arose: ‘so that, as Hale put it, ‘by purchase of the land, that is turned into a lease in interest, which before was purely an estoppel”: see Holdsworth’s History of English Law, vol VII, p 246.’
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 24A
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 52, Bailii Summary, [2014] HLR 48, [2015] 1 AC 385, [2014] 3 WLR 1163, [2014] WLR(D) 447, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0102, SC, SC Summary)
  The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 24 October 2018
Ref: 143361

The post Bell and others v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd: CA 11 Dec 1997 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1714, [1999] 1 All ER 356
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 5
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 29 October 2018
Ref: 145193

The post Michaels v Harley House (Marylebone) Limited: CA 6 Nov 1998 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1862
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Renewed application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time for so doing
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 30 October 2018
Ref: 145341

The post UCB Bank Plc v Roy Chandler and Yvonne Ann Chandler: CA 26 Nov 1998 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2000] 3 EGLR 97, [2000] EWCA Civ 191
Links: Bailii
Coram: Arden, Waller, Swinton Thomas
Ratio: The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time.
Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel.
Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 9, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• See Also – London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited CA (Gazette 20-May-98, Times 04-May-98, Gazette 16-Apr-98, Bailii, [1999] Ch 139, [1998] EWCA Civ 657, [1998] 3 EGLR 18, [1999] BLGR 282, [1998] 3 WLR 754, [1998] RVR 242, [1998] 39 EG 202)
  The company sought compensation for land taken under compulsory purchase powers by the defendants several years before. It now appealed against the defeat of its claim as time-barred.
  Held: The appeal failed. The limitation period for a claim . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – BP Oil UK Ltd v Kent County Council CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 798, Ghazette 04-Sep-03)
  BP sought compensation after its land had been acquired compulsorily. The council said its claim was time barred. BP appealed from the Lands Tribunal, saying an agreement with the Authority had kept its claim alive.
  Held: The fact of entry did . .
• Cited – Super Chem Products Limited v American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others PC (Bailii, [2004] UKPC 2, Times 28-Jan-04, PC, PC, PC, [2004] 2 All ER 358)
  PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
• Cited – Legal Services Commission v Rasool CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 154, Times 21-Apr-08, [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] 4 Costs LR 529, [2008] 1 WLR 2711, (2008) 158 NLJ 414)
  The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31 October 2018
Ref: 147224

The post London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2): CA 16 Jun 2000 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2001] EWCA Civ 274
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Mance
Ratio: The court considered the requirements to establish a proprietary estoppel: ‘It is on authority an established feature of both promissory and conventional estoppel that the parties should have had the objective intention to make, affect or confirm the legal relationship.’ The court also considered the requirements to be established for the creation of a contract: ‘For a contract to come into existence, there must be both (a) an agreement on essentials with sufficient certainty to be enforceable and (b) an intention to create legal relations.
Both requirements are normally judged objectively. Absence of the former may involve or be explained by the latter. But this is not always so. A sufficiently certain agreement may be reached, but there may be either expressly (i.e. by express agreement) or impliedly (e.g. in some family situations) no intention to create legal relations.
An intention to create legal relations is normally presumed in the case of an express or apparent agreement satisfying the first requirement: see Chitty on Contracts (28th edition) vol 1, para 2 – 146. It is otherwise, when the case is that an implied contract falls to be inferred from a party’s conduct: Chitty, para 2 – 147. It is then for the party asserting such a contract to show the necessity for implying it. As Morison J said in his paragraph 12(1), if the parties would or might have acted as they did without any such contract, there is no necessity to imply any contract. It is merely putting the same point another way to say that no intention to make any such contract will then be inferred.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Koeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 856, [2005] BCLC 379)
  The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
• Cited – West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty QBD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2866 (QB))
  The claimant sought damages from the defendant surgeon alleging negligent care of a footballer. The defendant argued that he had no duty to the club as employer of his patient who was being treated through his BUPA membership. It would have created . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31 October 2018
Ref: 147456

The post Baird Textile Holdings Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc: CA 28 Feb 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2001] EWCA Civ 369, [2001] 3 All ER 818, [2001] OPLR 181, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 274, [2001] Pens LR 163
Links: Bailii
Coram: Simon Brown, Robert Walker, Keene LJJ
Ratio: The court was asked questions of some general interest and importance as to claims for money paid under a mistake and the defences of change of position and estoppel.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 01 November 2018
Ref: 147474

The post Derby v Scottish Equitable Plc: CA 16 Mar 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 15-May-2001, [2002] QB 35, [2001] EWCA Civ 527, [2001] 3 WLR 31, [2001] 4 All ER 138
Links: Bailii
Coram: Pill LJ, Tuckey LJ and Sir Christopher Slade
Ratio: The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the presence of a witness. In the event, although the ‘witness’ signed shortly after the defendants, he did so without having been present when they signed. When, therefore, the claimant brought proceedings against them, the defendants disputed the claim on the basis that the ‘deed’ had not been validly executed.
Held: The defendants were estopped from denying that they had signed the document in the witness’s presence. Public policy could not be used to disallow a party from asserting that a deed was valid despite the fact that the signature had not been properly witnessed, even though it was in the nature of the deed that such witnessing was required by law. Here the witness signature had not been present when he added his signature. The circumstances which might give rise to such a claim would often be solely with the party seeking to avoid liability under a deed, and being permitted to deny his deed would lead to uncertainty and fraud. The party had presented it as his own and properly attested deed and could be estopped from denying it.
Pill LJ said: ‘I bear in mind the clarity of the language of section 1(2) and (3) and also that the requirement for attestation is integral to the requirement for signature in that the validity of the signature is stipulated to depend on the presence of the attesting witness. I also accept that attestation has a purpose in that it limits the scope for disputes as to whether the document was signed and the circumstances in which it was signed. The beneficial effect of the requirement for attestation of the signature in the manner specified in the statute is not in question. It gives some, but not complete, protection to other parties to the deed who can have more confidence in the genuineness of the signature by reason of the attestation. It gives some, but not complete, protection to a potential signatory who may be under a disability, either permanent or temporary. A person may aver in opposition to his own deed that he was induced to execute it by fraud, misrepresentation or, as was unsuccessfully alleged in the present case, duress and the attestation requirement is a safeguard.
I have, however, come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.
Having regard to the purposes for which deeds are used and indeed in some cases required, and the long-term obligations which deeds will often create, there are policy reasons for not permitting a party to escape his obligations under the deed by reason of a defect, however minor, in the way his signature was attested. The possible adverse consequences if a signatory could, months or years later, disclaim liability upon a purported deed, which he had signed and delivered, on the mere ground that his signature had not been attested in his presence, are obvious. The lack of proper attestation will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the signatory and, as Sir Christopher Slade observed in the course of argument, will often not be within the knowledge of the other parties.
In this case the document was described as a deed and was signed. A witness, to whom the third and fourth defendants were well known, provided a form of attestation shortly afterwards and the only failure was that he did so without being in the presence of the third and fourth defendants when they signed.’
Statutes: Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 1
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Leave given – Shah v Shah and others CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 493)
  Renewed application for permission to appeal – whether deed validly signed. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Wilson v Truelove ChD (Times 21-Feb-03, Gazette 13-Mar-03, Gazette 10-Apr-03, Bailii, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609)
  The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
  Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on . .
• Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD ([2006] 1 WLR 2964, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 266 (Ch))
  A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
• Cited – Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 17, Times 04-Apr-03, Bailii, [2003] 2 AC 541, [2003] 2 WLR 1060, [2003] 1 CLC 1003, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 331, [2003] 2 All ER 615, [2003] BLR 207, 88 Con LR 208)
  Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
• Cited – Iesini and Others v Westrip Holdings Ltd and Others ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2526 (Ch), [2011] 1 BCLC 498, [2010] BCC 420)
  The claimants were shareholders in Westrip, accusing the Defendant directors of deliberately engaging in a course of conduct which has led to Westrip losing ownership and control of a very valuable mining licence and which, but for their . .
• Cited – No1 West India Quay (Residential) Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2016] EWHC 2438 (Ch))
  Tenants under long residential leases challenged the refusal of the landlord to consent to particular assignments of apartments. The leases contained provisions saying that such consent was not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord now appealed . .
• Explained – Briggs and Others v Gleeds (Head Office) and Others ChD ([2015] 1 Ch 212, [2014] 3 WLR 1469, [2014] Pens LR 265, Bailii, [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 174, WLRD)
  The court was asked whether certain documents constituting a pension scheme had been effectively executed. They had been signed, but the signatures lacked the necessary witnessing. The scheme members claimed estoppel against the signatories.
  
• Distinguished – Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh and Others ChD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch))
  The defendants had charged a property to the claimant bank to secure a guarantee of borrowings. The signatures were not witnessed as required under section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, and there were other misdescriptions. The bank sought a declaration as . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 01 November 2018
Ref: 147505

The post Shah v Shah: CA 10 Apr 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2001] EWCA Civ 762
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Lightman
Ratio: VAT implications of tripartite voucher schemes
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 01 November 2018
Ref: 147558

The post F and I Services Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 23 May 2001 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: Times 21-Feb-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 750 (Ch), [2003] 23 EG 136, [2003] 2 EGLR 63, [2003] 10 EG 164, [2003] WTLR 609
Links: Bailii
Coram: Simon Berry QC
Ratio: The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on the original purchase. The defendants sought assistance in equity under an estoppel by convention. The fact that the defendant’s right arose under statute did not prevent equity overriding that right. To establish an estoppel generally it was necessary to identify some unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. None was shown here. To establish an estoppel by convention, there was no requirement for unconscionable behaviour, but it was necessary to show some common mistake as to the meaning of the contract, followed by a course of conduct establishing reliance upon that conventional interpretation. That was absent here. The parties were merely mistaken.
Statutes: Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD ((1818) 1 B and Ald 681, Bailii, Commonlii, [1818] EngR 497, (1818) 106 ER 250)
  The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
• Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA ([1976] Ch 179, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1975] EWCA Civ 7)
  The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
  Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
• Cited – Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA ([1982] QB 84, [1981] 1 All ER 923, [1981] 2 WLR 554, [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 27)
  The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
  Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
• Cited – Keen v Holland CA ([1984] 1 WLR 251, [1984] 1 All ER 75, (1983) 47 P and CR 639)
  Oliver LJ rejected a submission that, where parties were shown to have a common view about the legal effect of a contract into which they had entered and it was established that one of them would not, to the other’s knowledge, have entered into it . .
• Cited – Shah v Shah CA (Times 15-May-01, Bailii, [2002] QB 35, [2001] EWCA Civ 527, [2001] 3 WLR 31, [2001] 4 All ER 138)
  The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Taylor v Couch ChD (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1213 (Ch))
  The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 November 2018
Ref: 180367

The post Wilson v Truelove: ChD 25 Mar 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2003] UKHL 17, Times 04-Apr-2003, [2003] 2 AC 541, [2003] 2 WLR 1060, [2003] 1 CLC 1003, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 331, [2003] 2 All ER 615, [2003] BLR 207, 88 Con LR 208
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Ratio: Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim was based on an alleged oral guarantee. When the defendant pleaded the Statute of Frauds, the claimant alleged an estoppel, saying the defendant had urged it to continue to supply workers.
Held: Some recognisable structural framework must be established before recourse could be had to the underlying idea of unconscionable conduct. It needed to be shown that Actionstrength assumed that St-Gobain would honour the guarantee; that that assumption was induced or encouraged by St-Gobain; and that Actionstrength relied on that assumption. They had not established all these elements. These factors could not all be found in the pleadings. The only assurance given to Actionstrength was the promise itself. In order to be estopped from invoking the statute there must be something more, such as some additional encouragement, inducement or assurance. In addition to the promise there must be some influence exerted by St-Gobain on Actionstrength to lead it to assume that the promise would be honoured. However there was no suggestion made that St-Gobain said or did anything to lead Actionstrength to assume that St-Gobain would not stand on its rights.
The purpose of the Statute was, said Lord Hoffmann: ‘precisely to avoid the need to decide which side was telling the truth about whether or not an oral promise had been made and exactly what had been promised.’ and ‘It is quite true . . that the system of civil procedure in 1677 was not very well adapted to discovering the truth. For one thing, the parties to the action were not competent witnesses. But the question of whether the Act should be preserved in its application to guarantees was considered in 1953 by the Law Reform Committee (First Report, Statute of Frauds and Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (Cmd 8809)) and the recommendation of a very strong committee was to keep it.’
Lord Bingham said that section 4 was enacted ‘to address a mischief facilitated, it seems, by the procedural deficiencies of the day . . the calling of perjured evidence to prove spurious agreements said to have been made orally. The solution applied to the five classes of contract specified in section 4 was to require, as a condition of enforceability, some written memorandum or note of the agreement signed by the party to be charged under the agreement or his authorised agent’
Statutes: Statute of Frauds 1677 4
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Appeal from – Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering, In Gl En S P A , Saint-Gobain Glass UK Limited CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1477, [2002] 1 WLR 566)
  The claimant sought payment for works undertaken. They had been given a promise that in return for not withdrawing their workforce from the site, the second defendants would redirect payments due to the first defendant to the claimant. When it came . .
• Cited – Steadman v Steadman HL ([1976] AC 536)
  A mere payment of a sum of money might amount to an act of part performance, as might the act of a purchaser instructing solicitors to prepare and submit a draft conveyance or transfer, so as to leave asituation capable of enforcement in equity. . .
• Cited – Maddison v Alderson HL ((1883) 8 App Cas 467)
  The requirement of the doctrine of part performance is that the acts of part performance relied upon must be ‘referable’ to the contract sued on. The principle underlying the doctrine of part performance was expressed by Lord Selborne: ‘In a suit . .
• Cited – Shah v Shah CA (Times 15-May-01, Bailii, [2002] QB 35, [2001] EWCA Civ 527, [2001] 3 WLR 31, [2001] 4 All ER 138)
  The court was asked as to the enforceability of a document under the terms of which the defendants were to make a payment of pounds 1.5 million to the claimant. The document was described as a deed and provided for each defendant to sign in the . .
• Cited – Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd PC ([1964] AC 993)
  A clear public policy underlying a statute (for instance, the need to protect vulnerable persons dealing with moneylenders or landlords) prevents an estoppel arising: ‘To ask whether the law that confronts the estoppel can be seen to represent a . .
• Cited – Bank of Scotland v Wright ChD ([1991] BCLC 244)
  A director of two companies (one a subsidiary of the other) had given the bank a written guarantee of the liability of the holding company (only); but under an ‘interavailable’ facility backed by cross-guarantees (by the companies) the holding . .
• Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD ([1982] QB 133, [1981] 2 WLR 576, [1981] 1 All ER 897, [1979] 251 EG 159, Bailii, [1979] EWHC Ch 1)
  The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 56 (Comm), [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 95, [2011] 1 CLC 125, [2011] CILL 3022, [2011] 1 WLR 2575)
  The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
• Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 265)
  The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 November 2018
Ref: 180415

The post Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others: HL 3 Apr 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1991] 1 AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, [1990] 1 All ER 1111, [1990] UKHL 4, [1990] UKHL 14
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Ratio: The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest in it as the matrimonial home. She said there had been a common understanding or intention arising out of her own efforts in arranging for extensive renovation works and herself carrying out some redecoration that she would have an overriding interest under section 70(1)(g) in the house. The bank appealed a finding that she had a beneficial interest on the date of completion.
Held: To establish a trust here would have to have been a declaration in writing. Mrs Rosset therefore relied on an estoppel, for which she would have to establish a change of her circumstances in reliance upon such a representation. There was no such evidence, and the judge’s finding that Mr. Rosset held the property as constructive trustee for himself his wife could not be supported.
Lord Bridge said: ‘The first and fundamental question which must always be resolved is whether, independently of any inference to be drawn from the conduct of the parties in the course of sharing the house as their home and managing their joint affairs, there has at any time prior to acquisition, or exceptionally at some later date, been any agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between them that the property is to be shared beneficially. The finding of an agreement or arrangement to share in this sense can only, I think, be based on evidence of express discussions between the partners, however imperfectly remembered and however imprecise their terms may have been. Once a finding to this effect is made it will only be necessary for the partner asserting a claim to a beneficial interest against the partner entitled to the legal estate to show that he or she has acted to his or her detriment or significantly altered his or her position in reliance on the agreement in order to give rise to a constructive trust or a proprietary estoppel.
‘where there is no evidence to support a finding of an agreement or arrangement to share, however reasonable it might have been for the parties to reach such an arrangement if they had applied their minds to the question, and where the court must rely entirely on the conduct of the parties both as the basis from which to infer a common intention to share the property beneficially and as the conduct relied on to give rise to a constructive trust. In this situation direct contributions to the purchase price by the partner who is not the legal owner, whether initially or by payment of mortgage instalments, will readily justify the inference necessary to the creation of a constructive trust. But, as I read the authorities, it is at least extremely doubtful whether anything less will do.’
Statutes: Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g), Law of Property Act 1925 53(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Pettitt v Pettitt HL ([1969] 2 WLR 966, [1969] 2 All ER 385, [1970] AC 777, Bailii, [1969] UKHL 5)
  A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.
  Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its . .
• Cited – Gissing v Gissing HL ([1970] 3 WLR 255, [1971] AC 886, [1970] 2 All ER 780, Bailii, [1970] UKHL 3)
  The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
  Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a . .
• Cited – Eves v Eves CA ([1975] 1 WLR 1338, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 768, [1975] EWCA Civ 3)
  The couple were unmarried. The female partner had been led by the male partner to believe, when they set up home together, that the property would belong to them jointly. He had had told her that the only reason why the property was to be acquired . .
• Cited – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA ([1986] 1 Ch 638, [1986] 2 All ER 426, Bailii, [1986] 3 WLR 114, [1986] EWCA Civ 4, [1986] Fam Law 300, [1987] 1 FLR 87)
  A couple were not married but lived together in a house in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names was . .
• Appeal from – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA ([1988] EWCA Civ 11, Bailii, [1989] Ch 350)
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Chan, Chun v Leung, Ho CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA] Civ 1075)
  The claimant sought to assert her interest in a house purchased by a company in debt to the respondent for whom she had worked and with whom she had had a relationship. The company was insolvent. She claimed he had promised her a house, and that it . .
• Considered – Springett v Defoe CA ((1992) 65 P and CR 1, (1992) 24 HLR 552)
  Partners lived together, without being married, as secure joint tenants. They exercised the right to buy, contributing three quarters and one quarter of the price respectively. At the time they intended to marry. They did not discuss he shares, and . .
• Cited – Evans v James (Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Hopkin Deceased) CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1759)
  Before the parties called evidence, and having read the papers, the court considered that there was no real defence shown, and invited submissions. Negotiations for the grant of a tenancy had been terminated by the sudden illness of the proposed . .
• Cited – Hyett v Stanley and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 942, [2004] 1 FLR 394)
  The couple had lived together at the property without being married for several years. The house was held in the man’s sole name, and after his death she sought a half share in it. It was established that she had been told she should have a half . .
• Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 08-Jul-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] 1 WLR 1217, [2000] Ch 162, [1999] EGCS 92, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [2000] 1 All ER 711)
  The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
• Cited – Oxley v Hiscock CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 546, Times 14-Jul-04, [2004] 2 FLR 669, [2005] Fam 211)
  The parties were not married, but had brought together their resources to purchase a home in the name of one of them. Nothing had been said about the respective shares on which the property was to be held.
  Held: The shares were to be assessed . .
• Followed – Midland Bank v Cooke and Another CA (Independent 26-Jul-95, Times 13-Jul-95, Gazette 31-Aug-95, [1995] 4 All ER 562, [1995] 2 FLR 915)
  The bank sought to enforce a charge given by the husband to secure a business loan. The property was purchased from the husband’s and his family’s resources and the loan, and was in his name. There had been no discussion or agreement between husband . .
• Cited – Drake v Whipp CA (Times 19-Dec-95, [1996] 2 FCR 296, [1995] EWCA Civ 25, [1996] 2 FCR 296, (1996) 28 HLR 531, [1996] CLY 5780, Bailii)
  The parties, an unmarried cohabiting couple, disputed their respective shares in a property held in the man’s sole name. Both had made direct contributions both to the purchase of a barn and to its expensive conversion into a home. The plaintiff . .
• Cited – Goodchild and Another v Goodchild CA (Times 12-May-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1611, [1997] 3 All ER 63, [1997] 1 WLR 1216)
  The deceased and his wife made wills in virtually identical form. The husband changed his will after their divorce, but his son and other wife claimed that the couple had intended the wills to be part of a larger arrangement of their affairs, . .
• Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD ([2006] 1 WLR 2964, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 266 (Ch))
  A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
• Cited – Stack v Dowden CA ([2006] 1 FLR 254, Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 857)
  The parties purchased a property together. The transfer contained a survivorship restriction but no declaration of the beneficial interests. The judge had held the property to be held as tenants in commn on equal shares.
  Held: In a case where . .
• Cited – Van Laethem v Brooker and Another ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1478 (Ch))
  The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married.
  Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the . .
• Cited – Kyriakides v Pippas ([2004] EWHC (Ch) 644)
  When considering the trusts on which land is held, and where there is no declaration of trust, the court puts itself in the position of a jury and considers all the circumstances of the case, so as to arrive at the purchaser’s real intention: ‘I . .
• Cited – Crossley v Crossley CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1581)
  The claimant appealed an order that a house was to be held in equal shares with her son. The house was registered in their joint names, but the transfer contained no declaration of the interests. The house had been originally bought by the mother . .
• Cited – Stack v Dowden HL ([2007] 2 WLR 831, Bailii, [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929, [2007] 2 WLR 831, [2007] AC 432, Times 26-Apr-07, [2007] 1 FLR 1858, [2007] BPIR 913, [2007] Fam Law 593, [2007] 2 FCR 280, [2007] 18 EG 153, (2006-07) 9 ITELR 815, [2007] WTLR 1053)
  The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
• Cited – Healey v Brown ChD ([2002] 19 EG 147, Bailii, [2002] EWHC Ch 1405, (2002) 19 EG 147)
  The two deceased had made mutual wills bequeathing the family home. The survivor transferred the property during his life to defeat the agreement. It was now said that the arrangement fell foul of the 1989 Act and was unenforceable.
  Held: . .
• Cited – Hopton v Miller ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC B20 (Ch))
  The parties had entered into partnership to open and run a restaurant, but without a formal agreement. They differed as to the values contributed by their respective efforts. After failures to disclose materials requested, the defendant we precluded . .
• Cited – Williams v Lawrence and Another ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2001 (Ch))
  The claimant, as trustee for the deceased’s insolvent estate, sought a declaration that a transfer of the deceased’s share in property made by the executors was void as being at an undervalue. The property was subject to a right of occupation in . .
• Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 52, Bailii Summary, [2014] HLR 48, [2015] 1 AC 385, [2014] 3 WLR 1163, [2014] WLR(D) 447, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0102, SC, SC Summary)
  The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 180914

The post Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset: HL 29 Mar 1990 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1982] AC 529, [1981] 3 WLR 906, [1981] UKHL 13, [1981] 3 All ER 727
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Diplock, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon
Ratio: An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial.
Held: This was a collateral attack amounting to an abuse of process, not because of the the limits of police immunity, but to provide an effective immunity. The purpose of the action was not in truth to obtain damages from the Chief Constable but to undermine the conviction. Unless debarred from doing so, defendants convicted after a full and fair trial who failed to appeal successfully, may challenge their convictions by suing advocates who appeared for them. Public policy requires a defendant, who seeks to challenge his conviction, to do so directly by seeking to appeal his conviction.
Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, this is a case about abuse of the process of the High Court. It concerns the inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people. The circumstances in which abuse of process can arise are very varied; those which give rise to the instant appeal must surely be unique. It would, in my view, be most unwise if this House were to use this occasion to say anything that might be taken as limiting to fixed categories the kinds of circumstances in which the court has a duty (I disavow the word discretion) to exercise this salutary power.’
. . And ‘The abuse of process which the instant case exemplifies is the initiation of proceedings in a court of justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack upon a final decision against the intending plaintiff which has been made by another court of competent jurisdiction in previous proceedings in which the intending plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the decision in the court by which it was made.’
Statutes: Civil Evidence Act 1968 11
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Reichel v Magrath PC ([1889] 14 App Cas 665)
  The new vicar of Sparsholt, Dr Magrath, was able to rely on the abuse of process even though he had not been party to earlier proceedings between Reichel and the Bishop of Oxford and the Queen’s College and so was not bound by any issue estoppel . .
• Cited – Stevenson v Garnett ([1898] 1 QB 677)
  AL Smith LJ: ‘The court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious yet it ought to do so when as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has . .
• Appeal from – McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands CA ([1980] QB 283, [1980] 2 All ER 227, [1980] 2 WLR 689)
  The appellant had been convicted of an IRA bombing, causing loss of many lives. The appellant and his other co-accused alleged that their confessions had been induced by police violence. The trial judge ruled that their confessions were voluntary . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Gribbon v Lutton and Another CA (Times 04-Dec-01, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1956, [2002] 2 EGCS 100, [2002] NPC 2, [2002] QB 902, [2002] PNLR 19, [2002] 2 WLR 842, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 272)
  The defendant solicitors acted in obtaining and holding a deposit on the sale of land. They issued interpleader proceedings which decided that the deposit was payable to the purchaser. The vendor then sued the solicitors in negligence. The . .
• Cited – The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 321, Times 31-Mar-03, Gazette 09-May-03, [2004] Ch 1, [2003] 3 WLR 841, [2003] 1 BCLC 696, [2003] BCC 682, [2003] CP Rep 46, [2004] 4 All ER 325)
  The Secretary of State attempted, in the course of director’s disqualification proceedings, to rely upon findings made against Mr Bairstow in an earlier wrongful dismissal action to which he had been a party but the Secretary of State not. The . .
• Cited – Smith v Linskills CA (Gazette 28-Feb-96, Times 07-Feb-96, [1996] 1 WLR 763, [1996] 2 All ER 353)
  The claimant, a convicted burglar took proceedings against his former solicitors. He alleged that the negligence of the solicitor caused his wrongful conviction.
  Held: The case was dismissed. The claimant was seeking to re-litigate issues . .
• Cited – Arthur J S Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, Times 21-Jul-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 38, [2000] 3 All ER 673, [2000] 3 WLR 543, [2000] 2 FLR 545, [2000] Fam Law 806, [2002] 1 AC 615)
  Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers.
  Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in . .
• Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, Times 01-Aug-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 44, [2001] AC 435, [2000] 3 WLR 747)
  The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
• Cited – Sweetman v Nathan and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1115, Times 01-Sep-03, [2004] PNLR 89)
  The claimant had been engaged with his solicitor in a fraudulent land transaction. He now sought to sue the solicitor for negligence. The solicitor replied that the claimant was unable to rely upon his own unlawful act to make a claim.
  Held: . .
• Cited – Regina v Chichester Justices ex parte Stephen Alexander Crowther Admn (Bailii, [1998] EWHC Admin 960)
  The defendant sought judicial review of an order made in 1998 issuing a warrant for his committal for failure to pay a confiscation order made in 1991. He had served 6 years imprisonment, and in default of payment a further 18 months. He was . .
• Cited – Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA ([2003] EWCA Civ 1668, Bailii, Times 27-Nov-03, Gazette 15-Jan-04, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 67)
  The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
• Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 3002 (Admin), Times 06-Jan-04)
  The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
  Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
• Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL (House of Lords, Times 11-Feb-05, Bailii, [2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 WLR 637, [2005] 1 All ER 945, [2005] EMLR 287)
  The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
• Cited – Regina v Thomas Shanks CACD (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Crim 680)
  The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
  Held: The judge had . .
• Cited – Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn ([1997] EWHC Admin 851)
  The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
  Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
• Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Crim 1902, Times 24-Aug-06, [2006] 1 WLR 3092)
  The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
• Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn (Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 112, [1999] 2 CAR 188)
  The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
  Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
• Cited – Laing v Taylor Walton (A Firm) QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 196 (QB))
  The claimant sought to pursue an action for professional negligence against his solicitors. They said that the action was an abuse being an attempted relitigation of matters already settled when a judge had decided that the defendants had not owed a . .
• Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL (Gazette 05-Jan-01, House of Lords, Times 20-Dec-00, Gazette 22-Feb-01, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 65, [2001] 2 WLR 72, [2001] 1 All ER 481, [2002] 2 AC 31)
  A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
  Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
• Cited – Taylor Walton (A Firm) v Laing CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1146, [2008] PNLR 11)
  The appellants appealed against a refusal to strike out as an abuse of process the respondent’s claim against them for professional negligence in the drafting of development agreements.
  Buxton LJ considered the nature of the enquiry on such an . .
• Cited – Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL (Times 24-Apr-08, Bailii, [2008] UKHL 25, [2008] 2 WLR 975, HL, [2008] 3 All ER 573, [2008] AC 962)
  The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now appealed a finding that he might . .
• Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL (Times 29-Jun-01, Bailii, Gazette 26-Jul-01, House of Lords, [2001] 1 WLR 1388, [2001] UKHL 34, [2001] 3 FCR 97, [2001] 3 All ER 961)
  The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
• Cited – Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Another CA ([2001] EWCA Civ 777, Bailii)
  Law upon res judicata – action estoppel and issue estoppel and the underlying policy interest whereby there is finality in litigation and litigants are not vexed twice on the same matter.
  (May LJ) ‘the authorities taken as a whole tend to . .
• Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 1253 (QB))
  The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
  Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
• Cited – Calzaghe v Warren QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 71 (QB))
  The claimant boxer had secured judgement for fight fees from a company operated by the respondent manager and promoter. After the judgment the defendant had put the company into administration. The claimant now sought payment from the defendant . .
• Cited – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 795 (QB))
  The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
  Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be . .
• Cited – Hi-Lite Electrical Ltd v Wolseley UK Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 3075 (QB), [2010] BLR 225)
  The claimant sought a contribution from the defendant towards its liability for a fire at its premises, as found in earlier proceedings against the now claimant. The defendant had filed a defence merely not admitting, and not denying, responsibility . .
• Cited – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 242 (Comm))
  The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration . .
• Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC ([2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 476, Bailii, [2012] EWHC 2560 (Comm))
  The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 181062

The post Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police: HL 19 Nov 1981 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1970] 3 WLR 255, [1971] AC 886, [1970] 2 All ER 780, [1970] UKHL 3
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Diplock, Viscount Dolhorne, Lord Reid, Lord Morris, Lord Pearson
Ratio: The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it.
Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a person, whether spouse or stranger, in whom the land is not vested. A common intention has to be inferred from the parties’ conduct as to how the beneficial interest is to be held. The relevant intention is that which a reasonable person would draw from the parties’ words or conduct. The court must determine what inferences can reasonably be drawn in each case.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘It may be that it is alleged that some time after the acquisition of the matrimonial home the spouses formed the intention of sharing the beneficial interest. It may well be difficult to establish this but if it was, for instance, proved that up to the time when such an intention is alleged to have been formed, the mortgage payments were made by one spouse and thereafter by the other, then proof of that would tend to support the allegation.’
Lord Diplock said that where the most likely inference from the parties’ conduct is that the beneficial interest was not to belong solely to the party in whom the legal title is vested, the court must determine what in all the circumstances is a fair share: ‘A resulting, implied or constructive trust – and it is unnecessary for present purposes to distinguish between these three classes of trust – is created by a transaction between the trustee and the cestui que trust in connection with the acquisition by the trustee of a legal estate in land, whenever the trustee has so conducted himself that it would be inequitable to allow him to deny to the cestui que trust a beneficial interest in the land acquired. And he will be held so to have conducted himself if by his words or conduct he has induced the cestui que trust to act to his own detriment in the reasonable belief that by so acting he was acquiring a beneficial interest in the land.’
As to the shares upon which the property was held: ‘In such a case [where the court is satisfied that it was the common intention of both spouses that the contributing wife should have a share in the beneficial interest and that her contributions were made upon this understanding] the court must first do its best to discover from the conduct of the spouses whether any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the probable common understanding about the amount of the share of the contributing spouse upon which each must have acted in doing what each did, even though that understanding was never expressly stated by one spouse to the other or even consciously formulated in words by either of them independently. It is only if no such inference can be drawn that the court is driven to apply as a rule of law, and not as an inference of fact, the maxim ‘equality is equity’, and to hold that the beneficial interest belongs to the spouses in equal shares.
The same result however may often be reached as an inference of fact. The instalments of a mortgage to a building society are generally repayable over a period of many years. During that period, as both must be aware, the ability of each spouse to contribute to the instalments out of their separate earnings is likely to alter, particularly in the case of the wife if any children are born of the marriage. If the contribution of the wife in an early part of the period of repayment is substantial but is not an identifiable and uniform proportion of each instalment, because her contributions are indirect or, if direct, are made irregularly, it may well be a reasonable inference that their common intention at the time of the acquisition of the matrimonial home was that the beneficial interest should be held by them in equal shares and that each should contribute to the cost of its acquisition whatever amounts each could afford in the varying exigencies of family life to be expected during the period of repayment. In the social conditions of today this would be a natural enough common intention of a young couple who were both earning when the house was acquired but who contemplated having children whose birth and rearing in their infancy would necessarily affect the future earning capacity of the wife.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Roy Green v Vivia Green PC (Bailii, [2003] UKPC 39, PC)
  PC (Jamaica) The claimant sought a declaration that he was entitled to one half of the marriage assets on divorce. They had each acquired various properties and assets both in Jamaica and the USA. The judge at . .
• Cited – B and Others Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet and Co v Auckland District Law Society, Gary J Judd PC (PC, Times 21-May-03, Bailii, [2003] UKPC 38, Gazette 03-Jul-03, [2003] 2 AC 736, [2004] 4 All ER 269, [2003] 3 WLR 859)
  (New Zealand) Solicitors resisted requests to disclose papers in breach of legal professional privilege from their professional body investigating allegations of professional misconduct against them.
  Held: The appeal was allowed. The . .
• Considered – Springett v Defoe CA ((1992) 65 P and CR 1, (1992) 24 HLR 552)
  Partners lived together, without being married, as secure joint tenants. They exercised the right to buy, contributing three quarters and one quarter of the price respectively. At the time they intended to marry. They did not discuss he shares, and . .
• Cited – Foskett v McKeown and Others CA (Times 27-Jun-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1747, [1998] Ch 265)
  Various people had paid money with the promise of acquiring an interest in land in Portugal. The scheme was fraudulent. The funds had been used to purchase a life/investment policy. The policy was held in trust for the fraudster’s mother but he had . .
• Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL ([1991] 1 AC 107, [1990] 2 WLR 867, [1990] 1 All ER 1111, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 4, Bailii, [1990] UKHL 14)
  The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
• Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 08-Jul-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] 1 WLR 1217, [2000] Ch 162, [1999] EGCS 92, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [2000] 1 All ER 711)
  The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
• Applied – Stokes v Anderson CA ([1991] 1 FLR 391)
  The claimant had made two payments, amounting together to andpound;12,000, towards the acquisition of the one half share of the defendant’s ex-wife in the net equity (valued at andpound;90,000) in a house in which the claimant and the respondent . .
• Cited – Hyett v Stanley and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 942, [2004] 1 FLR 394)
  The couple had lived together at the property without being married for several years. The house was held in the man’s sole name, and after his death she sought a half share in it. It was established that she had been told she should have a half . .
• Applied – Burns v Burns CA ([1984] 1 All ER 244, Bailii, [1983] EWCA Civ 4, [1984] Ch 317, [1984] 2 WLR 582)
  The parties lived together for 17 years but were not married. The woman took the man’s name, but beyond taking on usual household duties, she made no direct financial contribution to the house. She brought up their two children over 17 years. . .
• Cited – Walker v Hall CA ([1984] FLR 126)
  The court considered the way of distributing property purchased by an unmarried couple: ‘When such a relationship comes to an end, just as with many divorced couples, there are likely to be disputes about the distribution of shared property. How are . .
• Cited – Turton v Turton CA ([1988] Ch 542)
  When ascertaining the beneficial interests in a family home purchased by an unmarried couple, those interests had to be ascertained from consideration of the intentions of the parties at the time of the purchase; they were not to be left for . .
• Cited – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA ([1986] 1 Ch 638, [1986] 2 All ER 426, Bailii, [1986] 3 WLR 114, [1986] EWCA Civ 4, [1986] Fam Law 300, [1987] 1 FLR 87)
  A couple were not married but lived together in a house in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names was . .
• Cited – McFarlane v McFarlane CANI ([1972] NI 59)
  The parties disputed their respective shares in the family home. The facts in Pettitt and Gissing ‘were not such as to facilitate or encourage a comprehensive statement of this vexed branch of the law’ and ‘much remains unsettled.’ The court . .
• Cited – Springette v Defoe CA ([1992] 2 FLR 388)
  Property was purchased in joint names, but with no express declaration of the beneficial interests. The couple had lived together for a short time as joint tenants of the local authority. They were able to purchase at a substantial discount from the . .
• Cited – Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd and Others ChD ([2006] 1 WLR 2964, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 266 (Ch))
  A developer claimed to have agreed that upon obtaining necessary planning permissions for land belonging to the respondents, he would purchase the land at a price reflecting its new value. The defendant denied that any legally enforceable agreement . .
• Cited – Van Laethem v Brooker and Another ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1478 (Ch))
  The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married.
  Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the . .
• Cited – Collier v Collier CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1095, [2002] BPIR 1057, [2002] 6 ITELR 270)
  The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been . .
• Cited – Clarke v Harlowe ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC B20 (Ch))
  The parties lived together. They acquired between them several properties of which the last was declared to be held as joint tenants. The relationship broke down. The parties now sought a declaration as to the destination of the proceeds of sale, . .
• Cited – Stack v Dowden HL ([2007] 2 WLR 831, Bailii, [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 All ER 929, [2007] 2 WLR 831, [2007] AC 432, Times 26-Apr-07, [2007] 1 FLR 1858, [2007] BPIR 913, [2007] Fam Law 593, [2007] 2 FCR 280, [2007] 18 EG 153, (2006-07) 9 ITELR 815, [2007] WTLR 1053)
  The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
• Cited – Eves v Eves CA ([1975] 1 WLR 1338, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 768, [1975] EWCA Civ 3)
  The couple were unmarried. The female partner had been led by the male partner to believe, when they set up home together, that the property would belong to them jointly. He had had told her that the only reason why the property was to be acquired . .
• Cited – James v Thomas CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1212)
  The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
• Cited – Fowler v Barron CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 377)
  The parties had lived together for many years but without marrying. The house had been put in joint names, but without specific advice on the issue or any express declaration of trust. In practice Mr Barron made the direct payments for the house and . .
• Cited – Kilcarne Holdings Ltd v Targetfollow (Birmingham) Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1355, [2005] 2 P and CR 105)
  The defendant had brought in the claimant in order to assist in satisfying its own obligations under a lease. The joint venture was not recorded in a formal agreement. The appellant asserted that a constructive trust had been created. The judge had . .
• Cited – Parris v Williams CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1147)
  The parties had been business partners, but the business failed, and Mr Williams was made bankrupt. Mr Parris was offered a chance to purchase two apartments, and did so in his own name. Mr Williams asserted an interest, saying that it had been a . .
• Cited – Thorner v Major and others HL (Bailii, [2009] UKHL 18, Times, HL, [2009] 13 EG 142, [2009] WTLR 71, [2009] Fam Law 583, [2009] 2 FLR 405, [2009] 1 WLR 776)
  The deceased had made a will including a gift to the claimant, but had then revoked the will. The claimant asserted that an estoppel had been created in his favour over a farm, and that the defendant administrators of the promisor’s estate held it . .
• Cited – Cooper and Others v Fanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1368)
  F claimed to be the beneficial owner of shares registered in the names of the claimants. The appellants challenged a finding that the shares were held on trust for F, and the implication that the first appellant had presented a dishonest claim.
  
• Cited – Clarke and Another v Corless and Another CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 338)
  The claimants appealed against refusal of a declaration that a neighbouring access road and land was held on a constructive trust. They said that an agreement bewteeen the parties should have been effective to impose a trust on the defendants. The . .
• Cited – Jones v Kernott SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 53, SC Summary, UKSC 2010/0130, SC, Bailii Summary, [2011] 46 EG 104, [2011] 3 FCR 495, [2011] Fam Law 1338, [2012] WTLR 125, [2011] NPC 116, [2011] BPIR 1653, [2011] 3 WLR 1121, 14 ITELR 491)
  The parties were unmarried but had lived together. They now disputed the shares in which they had held the family home. It had been bought in joint names, but after Mr Kernott (K) left in 1993, Ms Jones (J) had made all payments on the house. She . .
• Cited – Singh v Singh and Another ChD (Bailii, [2014] EWHC 1060 (Ch))
  The parties disputed ownership of various valuable properties. The father asserted that they were held under trusts following the Mitakshara Hindu code, under a common intention constructive trust. The son said that properties held in his own name . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 182237

The post Gissing v Gissing: HL 7 Jul 1970 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

hughes_metrorwyHL1877
References: [1877] 2 App Cas 439, [1877] 46 LJQB 583, [1877] UKHL 1
Links: Bailii
Coram: Cairns LC, Lord O’Hagan
Ratio: A notice to repair had been served by the landlord on the tenant. The tenant wrote offering to buy the premises and proposed deferring the commencement of repairs until the landlord responded. The landlord replied by letter asking the price. It was held that those letters had the effect of suspending the notice. The tenant’s letter was ‘a definite intimation . . that they would not proceed to execute the repairs . . if they found that there was a possibility of an agreement to purchase being come to.’ Of the courses open to the landlord, he had taken the course that he said to the tenant ‘I will adopt what you propose and enter upon a negotiation.’
More generally: (Cairns LC) ‘It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties who have entered into a definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results, certain penalties or legal forfeiture, afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties’ (Lord O’Hagan) ‘If there was real misleading and bona fide mistake, it does not matter that the Plaintiff acted honestly and without indirect purpose of any kind.’
This case is cited by:

• Applied – Ace Insurance Sa-Nv v Surendranath Seechurn CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 67, [2002] 2 Lloyds LR 390)
  The claimant sought payment under an insurance policy for his permanent disability. The judge had found that the defendant insurers had indicated a readiness to continue negotiations beyond the limitation period, and that they would apply for a stay . .
• Applied – Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd KBD ([1947] 1 KB 130, [1956] 1 All ER 256, [1947] LJR 77, [1947] 175 LT 332, [1947] 62 TLR 557)
  The plaintiff leased a block a flats to the defendant in 1939, at an annual rental of andpound;2500. High Trees had difficulty in filling the flats because of the war, and the parties agreed in writing in 1940 to reduce the rental to a half. No time . .
• Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1816)
  Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
  Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
• Cited – Tool Metal Manufactuing Company Ltd v Tungsten Electric Company Ltd HL (Bailii, [1955] UKHL 5, [1955] 1 WLR 761, [1955] 2 All ER 657)
  The principle in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway could apply to a reduction by concession in payments due to a creditor and a concession could be terminated by giving reasonable notice. . .
• Cited – Collier v P and M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 1329, [2007] NPC 136, [2008] 1 WLR 643, [2007] BPIR 1452)
  The claimant appealed against refusal of an order to set aside a statutory demand. He said that he had compromised a claim by the creditors. He argued for an extension to the Rule in Pinnel’s case, so that where a debtor agrees to pay part of a . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 183472

The post Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co: HL 1877 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch)
Links: Bailii
Coram: The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
Ratio: Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable notice, but all the circumstances of the present case pointed toward the inference of a licence. In this case a easonable period of notice might extend to years.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA (Times 25-Jul-02, [2003] 2 All ER 736, [2003] Fam 55)
  The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
  
• Cited – Pascoe v Turner CA ([1979] 1 WLR 431, Bailii, [1978] EWCA Civ 2, [1979] 2 All ER 945)
  The defendant had been assured by the plaintiff that ‘the house is yours and everything in it.’ In reliance on that assurance she carried out improvements to the house. Although the improvements were modest, their cost represented a large part of . .
• Cited – Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd ChD ([1982] QB 133, [1981] 2 WLR 576, [1981] 1 All ER 897, [1979] 251 EG 159, Bailii, [1979] EWHC Ch 1)
  The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is . .
• Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 08-Jul-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] 1 WLR 1217, [2000] Ch 162, [1999] EGCS 92, Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [2000] 1 All ER 711)
  The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
• Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA (Times 17-Mar-00, Gazette 23-Mar-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 66, [2001] Ch 210, [2000] 2 All ER 289, [2000] 2 WTLR 195, [2000] Fam Law 714, [2000] 1 FCR 705, [2000] 3 WLR 815, [2000] 2 FLR 266)
  Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
• Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 P and CR 100, [2003] 1 FCR 501)
  The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
• Cited – Keelwalk Properties Ltd v Betty Waller and Another CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1076, [2002] 3 EGLR 79)
  The claimant appealed refusal of its claim for possession against the respondents, occupiers of single-storey wooden bungalows on its land. The leases had expired. The defendants said the structures were their own, and not subject to the lease, and . .
• Cited – Inwards v Baker CA ([1965] QB 29, Bailii, [1965] 1 All ER 446, [1965] 2 WLR 212, [1965] EWCA Civ 465)
  An indulgent father had encouraged his son to build a bungalow on his, the father’s, land. The son had done so in the expectation, encouraged by the father, that he would be permitted to remain in occupation.
  Held: The court formulated the . .
• Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA ([1976] Ch 179, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1975] EWCA Civ 7)
  The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
  Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
• Cited – Griffiths v Williams CA ([1978] 2 EGLR 121)
  The claimant had been told she could live in a house for her life. On that assurance she improved the house.
  Held: She had raised an equity, but how could it be satisfied? The court declined to order the grant of a life interest because it . .
• Cited – Watson v Goldsborough CA ([1986] 1 EGLR 265)
  The representative of an angling club sent the owner of the land a draft lease. The owner agreed that the club could have a lease, and in reliance on that assurance the club improved the land.
  Held: An equity had been established and that it . .
• Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham ([1986] 1 WLR 1498, [1987] 1 All ER 405)
  The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
• Cited – Pridean Limited v Forest Taverns Limited; John Hipwell and David Marshall CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1060, (1996) 75 P and CR 447)
  The claimant owned a public house. It set out with the defendant to to acquire the premises or to take a lease of them. The defendant went into occupation, and carried out works. Negotiations continued, but broke down over the form of protection to . .
• Cited – William John Perry Orgee v William John Neil Orgee CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2650)
  The defendant had claimed an agricultural tenancy under a proprietary estoppel. His claim succeeded at first instance. The judge found it had been clearly understood that he would continue to farm the land on the basis of an agricultural tenancy, as . .
• Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA ([1991] 2 EGLR 257, (1990) 62 P and CR 33)
  The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
• Cited – Willis v Hoare ((1999) 77 P and CR D42)
  Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be . .
• Cited – New Zealand Netherlands Society ‘Oranje’ Inc v Laurentuis Cornelis Kuys PC ([1973] 1 WLR 1126)
  (New Zealand) The scope of a fiduciary duty may be modified by a course of dealing by the person to whom the duty is owed. ‘The obligation not to profit from a position of trust, or, as it sometimes relevant to put it, not to allow a conflict to . .
• Cited – Kelly v Cooper and Another PC (Gazette 25-Nov-92, [1993] AC 205, [1992] 3 WLR 936, [1993] ANZ Conv R 138)
  There was a dispute between a client and an estate agent in Bermuda. The client sued the estate agent for damages for breach of duty in failing to disclose material information to him and for putting himself in a position where his duty and his . .
• Cited – J J Harrison v Harrison ([2002] BCLC 162)
  A company director, having concealed relevant information from the board, obtained company property at a substantial undervalue. . .
• Cited – Remon v City of London Real Property Co Ltd CA ([1921] 1 KB 49)
  The court was asked whether the plaintiff, a tenant of rooms to which (once enacted) the Act of 1920 applied and who had been excluded from possession by the landlord’s re-entry on the day that the Act came into force following service of a notice . .
• Cited – Javad v Aqil CA ([1991] 1 All ER 243, [1991] 1 WLR 1007, Bailii, [1990] EWCA Civ 1, [1990] 61 P and CR 164, [1990] 41 EG 61)
  A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
  Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
• Cited – Sopwith v Stuchbury ((1983) 17 HLR 50)
  The tenant had been allowed into occupation of residential property pending agreement of the terms of a tenancy. He argued that he was a tenant at will.
  Held: He was a mere licensee, and so was not entitled to go back on an agreed rent . .
• Cited – Isaac v Hotel de Paris Ltd ([1960] 1 WLR 239)
  . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Gibson v Douglas and Another CA (Bailii, [2016] EWCA Civ 1266)
  Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
  Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 185053

The post Parker v Parker: ChD 24 Jul 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1176, [2003] WTLR 1253
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The deceased left his estate within a discretionary trust. The claimant sought to assert an interest in it, claiming an estoppel and, under the 1975 Act, as his partner. They had lived together for four years. She had been dependent upon him financially, and had suffered violence.
Held: Once a proprietary estoppel has been established, the remedy should be no more than is necessary to protect against unconscionable conduct. The judge was entitled to find the establishment of the estoppel, and that no claim was available under the 1975 Act.
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA (Times 17-Mar-00, Gazette 23-Mar-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 66, [2001] Ch 210, [2000] 2 All ER 289, [2000] 2 WTLR 195, [2000] Fam Law 714, [2000] 1 FCR 705, [2000] 3 WLR 815, [2000] 2 FLR 266)
  Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
• Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 P and CR 100, [2003] 1 FCR 501)
  The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
• Cited – Wayling v Jones CA (Gazette 02-Aug-93, [1993] 69 PandCR 170)
  The plaintiff and defendant were in a homosexual reationship. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for nominal expenses against his repeated promise to leave the business to him in his will. A will was made to that effect, but the defendant sold . .
• Cited – Eves v Eves CA ([1975] 1 WLR 1338, Bailii, [1975] 3 All ER 768, [1975] EWCA Civ 3)
  The couple were unmarried. The female partner had been led by the male partner to believe, when they set up home together, that the property would belong to them jointly. He had had told her that the only reason why the property was to be acquired . .
• Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham ([1986] 1 WLR 1498, [1987] 1 All ER 405)
  The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 55, Times, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752, HL)
  The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
  Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
• Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA ((2008-09) 11 ITELR 344, [2008] 2 FCR 435, Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 732, [2008] WTLR 1289, [2009] 3 All ER 945)
  The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
  Held: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 November 2018
Ref: 186398

The post Grundy v Ottey: CA 31 Jul 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1374
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The major shareholder in the claimant company allowed the defendant and her mother to occupy a substantial house owned by the company. When possession was sought, the defendant argued that it had been promised to her that she could live there for as long as she wished. The defendant now asserted a proprietary estoppel, and appealed summary judgment against her.
Held: The matter should go to full trial.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Gillett v Holt and Another CA (Times 17-Mar-00, Gazette 23-Mar-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 66, [2001] Ch 210, [2000] 2 All ER 289, [2000] 2 WTLR 195, [2000] Fam Law 714, [2000] 1 FCR 705, [2000] 3 WLR 815, [2000] 2 FLR 266)
  Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 17 November 2018
Ref: 187102

The post Century SA (UK) Ltd v Clibbery and Another: CA 17 Jul 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.

References: [1982] QB 133, [1981] 2 WLR 576, [1981] 1 All ER 897, [1979] 251 EG 159, [1979] EWHC Ch 1
Links: Bailii
Coram: Oliver J
Ratio: The fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct permeates all the elements of the doctrine of estoppel. In the light of the more recent cases, the principle ‘requires a very much broader approach which is directed rather at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment than to enquiring whether the circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick of unconscionable behaviour.’
A party who seeks to set up an estoppel, whether a proprietary estoppel, estoppel by acquiescence or estoppel by encouragement, must establish that it would be unconscionable for the other party to be permitted to deny what he has allowed or encouraged the first party to assume to his detriment: ‘If A under an expectation created or encouraged by B that A shall have a certain interest in land thereafter, on the faith of such expectation and with B’s knowledge, and without objection by B, acts to his detriment in connection with such land, a Court of equity will compel B to give effect to such expectation’.
Estoppel is a principle of broad even protean application: ‘Furthermore the more recent cases indicate, in my judgment, that the application of the Ramsden v. Dyson LR 1 HL 129 principle – whether you call it proprietary estoppel by acquiescence or estoppel by encouragement is really immaterial – requires a very much broader approach which is directed rather at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to deny that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment than to inquiring whether the circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick for every form of unconscionable behaviour.’
The court considered the situations in which an estoppel may arise: ‘Furthermore the more recent cases indicate, in my judgment, that the application of the Ramsden v Dyson L.R. 1 H.L. 129 principle – whether you call it proprietary estoppel, estoppel by acquiescence or estoppel by encouragement is really immaterial – requires a very much broader approach which is directed rather at ascertaining whether, in particular individual circumstances, it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny that which, knowingly, or unknowingly, he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment than to inquiring whether the circumstances can be fitted within the confines of some preconceived formula serving as a universal yardstick for every form of unconscionable behaviour.’ and ‘The inquiry which I have to make therefore, as it seems to me, is simply whether, in all the circumstances of this case, it was unconscionable for the defendants to seek to take advantage of the mistake which, at the material time, everybody shared, and, in approaching that, I must consider the cases of the two plaintiffs separately because it may be that quite different considerations apply to each.’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

• Cited – Ramsden v Dyson HL ([1866] LR 1 HL 129, [1866] 12 Jur NS 506)
  The Vice-Chancellor had held that two tenants of Sir John Ramsden, the owner of a large estate near Huddersfield, were entitled to long leases of plots on the estate. They ostensibly held the plots as tenants at will only, but they had spent their . .
• Explained – Willmott v Barber ((1880) 15 Ch D 96)
  In 1869 Barber granted a 99-year lease of three acres of land in east London, subject to a covenant against assignment or sub-letting without consent. In 1874, in breach of covenant, he sub-let one acre on an annual tenancy to Willmott (who owned a . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Jennings v Rice, Wilson, Marsh, Norris, Norris, and Reed CA (Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 159, [2003] 1 P and CR 100, [2003] 1 FCR 501)
  The claimant asserted a proprietary estoppel against the respondents. He had worked for the deceased over many years, for little payment, and doing more and more for her. Though he still worked full time at first, he came to spend nights at the . .
• Cited – In re Basham dec’d; Basham v Basham ([1986] 1 WLR 1498, [1987] 1 All ER 405)
  The claimant and her husband had helped her mother and her stepfather throughout the claimant’s adult life. She received no remuneration but understood that she would inherit her stepfather’s property when he died. After her mother’s death and until . .
• Cited – Parker v Parker ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch))
  Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
  Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
• Cited – Dun and Bradstreet Software Services (England) Ltd; Dun and Bradstreet Software Services Ltd v Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association and General Accident Linked Life Assurance CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1816)
  Break clauses had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant landlords appealed a decision upholding the notices. A penalty rent had been sought.
  Held: There had been no sufficient agency established to validate the notice. The . .
• Cited – Gonthier and Another v Orange Contract Scaffolding Ltd CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 873)
  The question of a proprietary estoppel as between landlord and tenant arose. An agreement had been reached subject to contract for the grant of a lease, with an option to purchase. The tenant was allowed into possession before the documentation was . .
• Cited – King v Jackson (T/a Jackson Flower Company) CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2118, [1998] 1 EGLR 30)
  The defendant appealed an award of andpound;11,000 damages for unlawful eviction of his tenant. The tenant had found herself unable to pay the rent and had given notice to quit. She was then told to leave immediately. The judge awarded statutory . .
• Cited – Geoffrey Allan Chadwick, Sylvia Joyce Chadwick, Edward James Chadwick v Abbotswood Properties Ltd, Gordon Leonard Hauser, Pamela Ann Hauser, Rectory Pump Ltd ChD ([2004] EWCH 1058 (Ch), Bailii, [2004] All ER (D) 213)
  Between to new houses was a steep bank. Who owned it? Before the transfer there had been different plans and much correspondence.
  Held: Where there was doubt as to the extent of land transferred, the court could look to the physical boundaries . .
• Cited – Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 17, Times 04-Apr-03, Bailii, [2003] 2 AC 541, [2003] 2 WLR 1060, [2003] 1 CLC 1003, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 331, [2003] 2 All ER 615, [2003] BLR 207, 88 Con LR 208)
  Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
• Restated – Hodgens v Beckingham CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 143, [2003] EMLR 18)
  The defendant appealed a finding of infringement in a music copyright work, ‘Young at Heart’, based on a claim of joint authorship. The claimant had delayed his claim for many years, but now sought only rights to future royalties.
  Held: The . .
• Cited – Fisher v Brooker and Another ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3239 (Ch))
  The claimant said that he had contributed to the copyright in the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ but had been denied royalties. He had played the organ and particularly the organ solo which had contrbuted significantly to the fame of the record.
  
• Approved – Blue Haven Enterprises Ltd v Tully and Another PC (Bailii, [2006] UKPC 17)
  (Jamaica ) . .
• Cited – Barrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 1009 (Ch), [2006] EMLR 567)
  The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
• Cited – A and M Records Ltd v VCI ([1995] EMLR 25)
  Sir Mervyn Davies said: ‘However that may be, I am satisfied that Mr Ross was at all material times quite unaware of any activities of the plaintiffs being activities of a kind that he as owner of the copyright in the sound recordings could object . .
• Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL (Gazette 05-Jan-01, House of Lords, Times 20-Dec-00, Gazette 22-Feb-01, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 65, [2001] 2 WLR 72, [2001] 1 All ER 481, [2002] 2 AC 31)
  A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
  Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
• Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Lancashire Mortgage Corporation Ltd CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 684)
  The parties each had a charge over a property, and now disputed which had priority. The brewery appealed an order for rectification of the registers to reverse priority on the basis of an estoppel. The charge in their favour had been registered . .
• Approved – Gillett v Holt and Another CA (Times 17-Mar-00, Gazette 23-Mar-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 66, [2001] Ch 210, [2000] 2 All ER 289, [2000] 2 WTLR 195, [2000] Fam Law 714, [2000] 1 FCR 705, [2000] 3 WLR 815, [2000] 2 FLR 266)
  Repeated assurances, given over years, that the claimant would acquire an interest in property on the death of the person giving the re-assurance, and upon which the claimant relied to his detriment, could found a claim of equitable estoppel. The . .
• Approved – Brooker and Another v Fisher CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 287, [2008] Bus LR 1123, [2008] FSR 26, [2008] EMLR 13)
  The claimant had asserted a joint authorship of the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ written in the sixties. The defendant appealed saying that the claim had been brought too late, and that the finding ignored practice in the music industry. The . .
• Cited – London Borough of Bexley v Maison Maurice Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3192 (Ch))
  The council had taken land by compulsory purchase in order to construct a dual carriageway. It then claimed that it had left undedicated a strip .5 metre wide as a ransom strip to prevent the defendant restoring access to the road.
  Held: The . .
• Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 55, Times, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752, HL)
  The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
  Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
• Cited – SQ v RQ and Another FD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1874 (Fam))
  The home in which the family had lived was held in the name of a brother. Each party claimed that it was held in trust for them. Chancery proceedings had been consolidated into these ancillary relief applications. The home had been in the husband’s . .
• Cited – St Pancras and Humanist Housing Association Ltd v Leonard CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1442)
  The claimant sought possession of a garage. The defendant claimed adverse possession.
  Held: The defendant’s appeal against an order for possession failed. The defendant had attended a meeting where his behaviour had allowed other parties to . .
• Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA ((2008-09) 11 ITELR 344, [2008] 2 FCR 435, Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 732, [2008] WTLR 1289, [2009] 3 All ER 945)
  The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
  Held: . .
• Cited – Fisher v Brooker and Others HL (Bailii, [2009] UKHL 41, Times 12-Aug-09, [2009] 1 WLR 1764, [2009] FSR 25, [2009] Bus LR 1334, [2009] 4 All ER 789, [2009] ECDR 17, [2010] EMLR 2)
  The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future . .
• Endorsed – Habib Bank Ltd v Habib Bank AG Zurich CA ([1981] 1 WLR 1265, [1981] 2 All ER 650)
  A combination of defences based on delay was pleaded in a passing off action objecting to the use of a name which the defendants had been using without objection for many years. A permanent injunction was claimed.
  Held: Oliver LJ said as to . .
• Cited – Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 1022, [2010] RPC 7, (2010) 33(1) IPD 33003)
  The parties had long disputed the use of the trade marks ‘Bud’ and ‘Budweiser’ for their beers. The claimant now said that the defendants had made an abusive registration under the 1994 Act, by requesting a declaration that the registration by the . .
• Cited – Gill v Woodall and Others ChD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch), [2009] EWHC 834 (Ch))
  The claimant challenged her late mother’s will which had left the entire estate to a charity. She asserted lack of knowledge and approval and coercion, and also an estoppel. The will included a note explaining that no gift had been made because she . .
• Cited – Brightlingsea Haven Ltd and Another v Morris and others QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1928 (QB), [2009] 1 EGLR 117, [2009] 2 PandCR 11)
  The caravan park operated under planning consents requiring the caravans to be occupied only during certain months. The defendants had bought their mobile homes from the claimants to occupy full time, and said that the claimants knew of this. The . .
• Cited – Babbage v North Norfolk District Council CA ([1990] 1 EGLR 202)
  The court considered the extent of its ability to insert conditions into caravan site agreements under the 1960 Act. The site licence contained two relevant conditions. One required that no caravan should be occupied between November 1 and March 19. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 18 November 2018
Ref: 188170

The post Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd: ChD 1981 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.