Bank Notes

T - Third party interests

28/3/24

KENDALL v BALL [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch)

A joint declaration of trust of land in the names of the respondents was not conclusive in a claim by administrators of the applicant company for a declaration that the land was held by the respondents on resulting or constructive trust for the company. The court considered principles for establishing a resulting trust [37] but rejected the claim made on that basis. The court also considered principles on which directors are liable as constructive trustees if they acquire property in breach of duty [53]. On the facts, the claim that the land was held on constructive trust succeeded.

3/11/15

RAWLINGS v CHAPMAN [2015] EWHC 3160 (Ch)

The claimant’s claim to an interest by proprietary estoppel failed. Although the claimant had paid money to assist the deceased to renovate a house, the deceased had made no promise to leave the house to her and had said nothing to lead her to believe that such a promise had been made.

23/10/15

BARNES v PHILLIPS [2015] EWCA Civ 1056

Considers principles for determination of beneficial interests in property as between co-owners.

6/7/15

CREDIT & MERCANTILE PLC v WISHART [2015] EWCA Civ 655

The claimant’s claim to an overriding interest in land failed as against a mortgagee. The claimant had allowed a third party to represent himself (through a corporate nominee) as the beneficial owner with full authority to deal with the land as owner. The mortgagee was unaware that the third party had exceeded his authority in arranging the mortgage. Costs incurred by the mortgagee defending the claim were costs of enforcing the lender’s rights within the meaning of the mortgage deed.

3/6/13

BLEMAIN FINANCE LTD v CUGLEY [2014] BPIR 20

A transfer of property by the second defendant to the first defendant was void under s 284 Insolvency Act 1986 because it post-dated a bankruptcy petition presented against the second defendant, so the second defendant’s interest had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy. But the first defendant had been registered as proprietor and had granted a mortgage to the claimant at a time when no notice or restriction had been entered in the register, so the claimant’s mortgage was binding on the trustee under ss 58 & 85 Land Registration Act 2002. The trustee’s interest had not re-vested in the second defendant under s 283A by the time the mortgage was granted because the second defendant had not been living at the property when the bankruptcy order was made and the trustee had not been made aware that the second defendant had an interest in it. Even if the interest had re-vested, the second defendant had signed a form of consent to the mortgage. The second defendant’s claim to an overriding interest binding on the claimant was therefore dismissed.

Comment

24/5/13

CREASEY v SOLE [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch)

An arrangement for the defendant to farm part of the deceased’s land did not give the defendant exclusive occupation for agricultural purposes, so it could not be a tenancy within the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Nor did it give the defendant a right to occupy the land within the Trusts of Land & Appointment of trustees Act 1996 because the defendant's rights did not subsist in relation to the physical land, but only in relation to the an undivided share under a trust of the land.

19/6/12

SUGGITT v SUGGITT [2012] EWCA Civ 1140

Assurances were given by father to son that the son would inherit farmland and somewhere to live. The son’s reliance on the assurances by working on the land for no wage was sufficient to justify an interest by proprietary estoppel entitling the son to a transfer of a farmhouse and land on the father’s death.