Twin Benefits v Meek [2017] EWHC 177 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168This was an application by the claimant for an order for disclosure against a non-party under CPR r.31.17. The underlying action concerned a claim by the assignee of rights from the twin minor children of the first defendant (‘the twins’) concerning a compromise of earlier proceedings (‘the compromise’). The claimant alleged that neither the twins nor their mother was consulted about the compromise, and the compromise did not properly take account of the twins’ interests.
In the late 1990s the first defendant established an employee benefit ...
Matchmove v Dowding & anr [2016] EWCA Civ 1233
March 2017 #167The appellant appealed a decision regarding the enforceability of an agreement to sell a piece of land through proprietary estoppel and constructive trust notwithstanding the absence of a written contract.
F, a property developer, was the moving spirit of the appellant (M). In 2002, F began negotiations with G for the purchase of a plot of land (the land) and a meadow (the meadow). F intended to divide the land into two plots. Plot 1 and plot 2 would be sold separately. G did not want to sell until he had planning permission, which was granted in 2003.
By late 2003, a ‘comm...
Gorbunova v Estate of Boris Berezovsky & ors [2016] EWHC 1829 (Ch)
November 2016 #164B had been involved in litigation against A and the AP family (the litigation) from which he potentially stood to recover large sums of money. The claimant, G, was B’s long-term partner. In March 2012 the litigation deed was drawn up to reflect agreement between B and G regarding G’s entitlement to B’s assets (including the litigation). B subsequently lost his case against A and entered into settlement discussions with the AP family. The litigation agreement was a further document signed in September 2012 to reflect an agreement between B and G concerning her entitlement to any sums from...
Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763
April 2014 #138The appellant (Jaci) and the respondent (Sunil) were sister and brother-in-law respectively. This case related to the beneficial ownership of a property which Sunil had identified as a business opportunity (for Sunil to run as a B&B). Due to Sunil’s poor credit rating, the property was purchased in Jaci’s name via a mortgage, also in her name. Both parties agreed that there was an express oral agreement between them as to the terms on which the property was bought and held. The terms of that agreement were disputed and each party argued that they owned the beneficial inte...