Allen v Webster [2024] WTLR 775
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2024 #196By the underlying claim the appellant (the claimant at first instance) had sought a declaration as to the extent of his beneficial interest in a residential property (the property) which he and the respondent (the defendant at first instance) had purchased in joint names, having been at that time a cohabiting couple. Following a dispute, the claimant had moved out of the property only two years or so after it had initially been purchased. Prior to moving out, the claimant had contributed to the mortgage repayments in equal shares with the defendant, but had ceased to make any further con...
The Estate of Nafisa Hasan v Digit Ltd & anr [2024] WTLR 883
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2024 #196The court determined preliminary issues in respect of whether the deceased (who died in 2022 after the issue of proceedings) had a beneficial interest in a residential flat and, if so, what that interest was and whether the interest was held on an express trust, constructive trust or resulting trust, or under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
The first defendant was a Cayman Island company incorporated in 1998, which acquired the leasehold title of the flat shortly afterwards. The first defendant was incorporated by the deceased’s former husband, a colonel in the Pakistani arm...
Hudson v Hathway [2022] WTLR 973
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2022 #188The parties had started a relationship in 1990. Mr Hudson had moved into Ms Hathway’s home and become joint owner. They did not marry and had two sons. The home was sold and another bought in joint names. In 2007 they purchased Picnic House with a mortgage. It was again purchased in joint names with no declaration of trusts. They separated in 2009, with Ms Hathway staying at Picnic House. The mortgage was converted to an interest-only mortgage. It continued to be paid from a joint account into which both of their salaries had been paid.
In July and August 2013 there was an exchang...
Oberman v Collins & anr [2021] WTLR 267
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182In consolidated proceedings, the claimant sought a declaration that she was beneficially entitled to 50% of 41 properties on the basis of a common intention constructive trust, a partnership or proprietary estoppel. The claimant also sought relief under ss994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 on the grounds of unfair prejudice.
The claimant and the first defendant were in a relationship between 1995 and 2015, moving in together in 1996, and having two children. The second defendant was incorporated on 16 September 1996: 51 shares were issued to the first defendant and two shares w...
Matchmove v Dowding & anr [2016] EWCA Civ 1233
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | 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)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | 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...
Angove’s PTY Limited v Bailey & anr [2016] UKSC 47
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2016 #163A, an Australian winemaker, employed an English company called D&D as its agent and distributor in the UK. D&D bought wines from A in its own right and sold wines on A’s behalf pursuant to an agency and distribution agreement (the agreement). The agreement was terminable by either party on six months’ notice or by notice with immediate effect in a number of events including the appointment of an administrator or liquidator.
On 21 April 2012, D&D went into administration and on 10 July 2012 into creditors’ voluntary liquidation. On administration there were outstanding ...
Ely v Robson [2016] EWCA Civ 774
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2016 #163The defendant (D) appealed against an order of His Honour Judge Blair QC whereby he made a declaration as to the extent of the parties’ beneficial interests in a property (the property).
D met the claimant (C) in 1986. A year later, C moved with his three sons into D’s house (37 Ashley Road). That year, C also purchased the property with a mortgage and conveyed it into his sole name. D made no contribution to the purchase price.
In 1989, D purchased another property (89 Bournemouth Road). C maintained that he contributed c.£16,000 to the purchase price, but D di...
FHR European Ventures LLP & ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2014 #142The claimants engaged Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) to act as their agent in negotiating the purchase by FHR European Ventures LLP of the issued share capital of Monte Carlo Grand Hotel SAM (which owned a long leasehold interest in the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel) from Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd (vendor). As such an agent, Cedar owed a fiduciary duty to the claimants, notwithstanding which it entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement with the vendor to provide for the payment of a €10m fee following completion – the vendor was paid €211.5m when the purchase was completed on 2...
Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | 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...