Archive for the 'Trusts and Estoppel' Category

Page 3 of 6

Proprietary Estoppel: Detriment and Remedy in the Privy Council

By Dave on 18/02/2010. 0 Comments

In Henry and Mitchell v Henry [2010] UKPC 3, the Privy Council have given further consideration to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.  The judgment of the PC was delivered by Sir Jonathan Parker and it will be of particular interest as it demonstrates the continuing importance of the Court of Appeal’s excellent judgment in Gillett v Holt [2000] EWCA Civ 66 as well as raising (without deciding) the interesting issue of the remedy when section 116, LRA 2002 is in issue in relation to third party buyers after the estoppel has been established.

In summary, the facts are that Geraldine Pierre, who people referred to on St Lucia simply as … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , .

Credit where it's due?

By Dave on 12/01/2010. 2 Comments

Walsh v Singh [2009] EWHC 32 is a fascinating case about constructive trust (CT) and proprietary estoppel (PE), or at least it could have been. First credit goes to HHJ Purle QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, who has managed the seemingly impossible task of giving judgment in such a case without reference to any authority (beyond Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe, but on the quantum meruit point), despite the case being redolent (at least) of the facts in Lloyds Bank v Rosset, Midland Bank v Cooke, Coombes v Smith, Cobbe (on the estoppel point), Stack v Dowden, Thorner v Major (although probably distinguishable), a … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note and Trusts and Estoppel.

It's a confused world out there…

By NL on 04/01/2010. 11 Comments

And for the new year, it seems an opportune moment to delve into the Nearly Legal search logs in a vaguely quixotic attempt to provide answers to some of the questions that brought people here. Alternatively, where this is not possible, we can stare in mute bewilderment at what was behind the question…

It is with the latter that we begin
tolata mother and daughter inheritance tax and succession with a will
Just how much can you stuff into one short question? And without giving us any idea what is actually going on?

rehousing on asthma grounds lambeth
I’m resisting the temptation to make the obvious joke about Asthma Grounds … Read the full post

Posted in Adverse possession, Allocation, ASB, assured-tenancy, Disrepair, Housing law - All, Leasehold and shared ownership, Nuisance, Possession, secure-tenancy, Tolerated trespasser, Trusts and Estoppel and Various (non-housing). Tags: .

A strange new beast in the forest

By Francis Davey on 09/12/2009. 2 Comments

The case of Clarence House v National Westminster Bank [2009] EWCA Civ 1311 deals with a relatively new form of transaction that seems, at present, to be confined to City property transactions. I report it here because it may become more widespread.

This new beast is the virtual assignment. The idea is a simple one: a tenant, usually one who is also a landlord of sub-tenants, by a contract assigns all the economic rights and obligations of their lease to a third party, without actually assigning the lease itself. Most modern commercial leases prohibit (at least without consent) the assignment of the lease; parting with or sharing possession or … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: .

Chancery or Family? – the former matrimonial home

By Francis Davey on 09/12/2009. 0 Comments

In Smith v Smith the Court of Appeal considered the conflict between TOLATA and its family law jurisdiction.

The background is a sad one. The Smiths married in 2004. They bought what I assume to be a lovely house of 3,800 square feet in 5 floors and with substantial gardens both front and back for a total of £6 million. They spent another £7.4 million on “elaborate works of renovation” (with contributions of £1.5 million from Mr Smith and £0.4 million from Mrs Smith, the rest being funded by a mortgage). Mrs Smith directed the works and “her energy and flair were major contributors to its ultimate style and beauty”.… Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All and Trusts and Estoppel.

Mortgage possession defeated by constructive trust

By Francis Davey on 25/11/2009. 5 Comments

An opportunity to indulge in schadenfreude at the expense of a mortgage lender is offered by HSBC v Dyche [2009] EWHC 2954 (Ch) where a claim for possession by a mortgagee was dismissed because the actual occupant of the property was beneficiary under a constructive trust. The decision gives an example of the doctrine of the common intention constructive trust, and touches on the preconditions for overreaching to occur.

I’ll take a slightly different approach to the court and discuss each issue as it arises in the chronology.

the Constructive Trust

In 1976 Mr and Mrs Collelldeval (the C’s) moved into the property, which they held on trust for themselves … Read the full post

Posted in Housing law - All, Mortgage possession and Trusts and Estoppel. Tags: , , .

Section 2, LP(MP)A and proprietary estoppel: Where are we now?

By Dave on 05/11/2009. 0 Comments

The Issue

One of the slight frustrations of being an aspiring academic is that you tend to think in bite-size terms as and when the tutorial cycle demands.  We’ve just “done” the now familiar peaks and troughs of the “new model” constructive trust and proprietary estoppel.  When re-reading Thorner v Major (links to our post) and Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe (again, links to our post) for that purpose, a rather important side-issue emerges about whether proprietary estoppel can be used to “get around” section 2, LP(MP)A 1989.  Section 2, it will be remembered, requires that contracts for the sale or disposition of an interest in land require to be made … Read the full post

Posted in FLW article and Trusts and Estoppel.
row of sheds footer image
6 pages