Clarke v Meadus [2010] EWHC 3117 (Ch)

Analysis

Mrs Clarke was the daughter of Mrs Meadus and Mr R Meadus, who owned a property known as Bonavista as joint tenants. Mr Meadus died in March 1995. Mrs Clarke alleged that prior to his death Mr Meadus expressed that he wanted Bonavista to remain in the family after he and his wife were dead. They wanted Mrs Clarke to live with Mrs Meadus, at Bonavista, for the remainder of her life and she would have Bonavista on Mrs Meadus’s death. Mrs Meadus asked Mrs Clarke and her husband to move in, which they did in September 1995, after allegedly receiving repeated promises that Mrs Meadus would leave Bonavista to Mrs Clarke in her will. Mr and Mrs Clarke initially retained their own property in Kent.

Subsequently, a number of formal deeds were prepared by Mrs Meadus in an attempt to mitigate inheritance tax. A deed of variation severed the joint tenancy over Bonavista and passed Mr Meadus’s half share to Mrs Clarke. A deed of appointment and declaration of trust was also prepared, which appointed Mrs Clarke as a co-trustee with Mrs Meadus and set out that outgoings and improvement costs, as well as the repayment of a small mortgage, were to be split equally between them. The documents were all dated early in September 1996. Mrs Meadus allegedly executed a will passing her half share of Bonavista to Mrs Clarke at the same time.

Prior to selling her own house in January 1997, Mrs Clarke claimed she asked for further assurances that Mrs Meadus would leave her share of Bonavista to her. Mrs Clarke claimed she was entitled to the whole of the beneficial interest in Bonavista and relied either on there being a constructive trust or alternatively by virtue of promissory estoppel. Mrs Clarke went on to argue that in reliance upon all Mrs Meadus’s assurances she had acted to her own detriment, by selling her own house in Kent at a loss that she said she would not have done if she did not believe she would receive Mrs Meadus’s share after her death. She had cared for Mrs Meadus (without payment) and spent time and money improving Bonavista.

At first instance the Master said there could be no constructive trust; where there was an express trust this was conclusive. He also considered that the relief requested went too far. In relation proprietary estoppel the Master determined that there was no case to take forward as Mrs Clarke had failed to demonstrate any detriment was suffered. The claim was struck out but leave to appeal was granted.

Warren J disagreed with the Master’s decision to strike out the claim. While he said that this was not a decision on the facts, Warren J felt Mrs Clarke should have the opportunity to prove her case at trial.

Held:

1. (1) It is not correct to strike out a claim purely because the relief requested by the claimant goes further than the court considers appropriate. It is for the court to order a suitable remedy.
2. (2) The prior existence of an express trust does not preclude a claim for proprietary estoppel or the existence of a constructive trust where assurances have been made after the date of the express trust. Express trusts are capable of being overridden.
3. (3) The detriment to the claimant should only be assessed based on consideration of full evidence. This should not be assessed on summary judgment but fully at trial.
4. (4) The relevant consideration is what a person would have done if they knew that the promise made would not be kept, rather than what a person would have done if the promise had never been made.

JUDGMENT WARREN J Introduction [1] This is an appeal from an order of Master Bragge dated 7 April 2010. His order relates to the property Bonavista, East Street, Turners Hill, West Sussex. The claimant (Mrs Clarke) claims to be entitled to the entirety of the beneficial interest in Bonavista of which she and her mother, …

Continue reading "Clarke v Meadus [2010] EWHC 3117 (Ch)"