London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2022] EWCA Civ 28 (18 January 2022)

London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2022] EWCA Civ 28 (18 January 2022)

No charitable trust, constructive trust, or Quistclose trust was created over the property or its proceeds because there was no intention (objectively ascertained) to create such a trust, the relevant deeds and statutory context confirmed Brent's beneficial ownership, and any Quistclose trust over funds ended when the money was applied for its purpose. The new argument regarding charitable trusts arising from later funding could not be raised on appeal as it was not pleaded or tried below and would have required further factual inquiry.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 28
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent; 1st Defendant/appellant: Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of 'Harlesden Peoples Community Council'); 2nd Defendant/appellant: Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charitable Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Quistclose Trusts, Local Authority Statutory Powers, Resulting Trusts, Cy Près Doctrine, Procedural Law—raising New Points on Appeal
Charity Law Trusts Local Government Law Property Law Charitable Trusts Constructive Trusts Quistclose Trusts Local Authority Statutory Powers +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent

Claimant/respondent

Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of 'Harlesden Peoples Community Council')

1st Defendant/appellant

Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited

2nd Defendant/appellant

Her Majesty's Attorney General

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brent LBC holds land wholly or partly on charitable trusts arising from acquisition or subsequent funding
  2. 2 Whether a constructive or Quistclose trust arose from contributions to the property
  3. 3 Whether a new legal argument regarding charitable trusts could be raised on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

No charitable trust, constructive trust, or Quistclose trust was created over the property or its proceeds because there was no intention (objectively ascertained) to create such a trust, the relevant deeds and statutory context confirmed Brent's beneficial ownership, and any Quistclose trust over funds ended when the money was applied for its purpose. The new argument regarding charitable trusts arising from later funding could not be raised on appeal as it was not pleaded or tried below and would have required further factual inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stonebridge's appeal dismissed
  • No charitable or constructive trust declared over the property