Haigh v. Kent

Haigh v. Kent

The Court of Appeal (majority) held the trial judge did not err: the judge could find unjust enrichment because no juristic reason (enforceable partnership or rent) defeated the claim, the claimant's contributions were sufficiently direct and substantial to the property to permit a proprietary remedy, a monetary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCCA 380
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Randolph Lawrence Haigh; Appellant (defendant): Leonard Clive Kent; Appellant (defendant): Dee Alexander Kent; Respondent (defendant): Darlene Haigh
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeals dismissed (majority). Trial judgment awarding Haigh a constructive trust over a 25% beneficial interest in the property upheld; cross‑action for vacant possession dismissed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Value‑survived Vs Value‑received, Juristic Reason (partnership/rent), Partnership Identification, Vacant Possession
Source Language
english
Equity Trusts Property Law Unjust Enrichment Remedies Constructive Trust Value‑survived Vs Value‑received Juristic Reason (partnership/rent) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randolph Lawrence Haigh

Respondent (plaintiff)

Leonard Clive Kent

Appellant (defendant)

Dee Alexander Kent

Appellant (defendant)

Darlene Haigh

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant(s) were unjustly enriched by the claimant's long‑term contributions
  2. 2 Whether a juristic reason (partnership, rent or other) justified retention of the benefit
  3. 3 Whether a proprietary remedy (constructive trust) was appropriate or a monetary award adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal (majority) held the trial judge did not err: the judge could find unjust enrichment because no juristic reason (enforceable partnership or rent) defeated the claim, the claimant's contributions were sufficiently direct and substantial to the property to permit a proprietary remedy, a monetary award would be inadequate in the circumstances, and therefore a constructive trust awarding Haigh a 25% beneficial interest in the property was appropriate; appeals dismissed and the Kents' claim for vacant possession was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed (majority). Trial judgment awarding Haigh a constructive trust over a 25% beneficial interest in the property upheld; cross‑action for vacant possession dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Respondent Randolph Lawrence Haigh declared beneficially entitled to a 25% ownership share in the 95‑acre property; defendants (the Kents) hold that 25% share in constructive trust for Haigh