Morris v Morris [2008] EWCA Civ 257 (22 February 2008)

Morris v Morris [2008] EWCA Civ 257 (22 February 2008)

The evidence did not establish a common intention, whether express or inferred from conduct, that the claimant should acquire a beneficial interest in Ty Canol Farm. The claimant's contributions and involvement were insufficient to support a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The judge erred in finding otherwise, as the requisite legal tests were not satisfied.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 257
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Catherine Morris; Respondent/first Defendant/executor: Edward Morris; Respondent/second Defendant: Estate of Olive Morris (Mrs Morris Senior); Respondent/third Defendant: E M Morris (Partnership); Respondent/fourth Defendant: Robert Morris; Respondent/fifth Defendant: Sarah Morris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cardiff County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the lower court set aside.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Beneficial Interest in Land, Cohabitation and Property Rights
Property Law Equity and Trusts Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Beneficial Interest in Land Cohabitation and Property Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Morris

Appellant/claimant

Edward Morris

Respondent/first Defendant/executor

Estate of Olive Morris (Mrs Morris Senior)

Respondent/second Defendant

E M Morris (Partnership)

Respondent/third Defendant

Robert Morris

Respondent/fourth Defendant

Sarah Morris

Respondent/fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cardiff County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant acquired a beneficial interest in Ty Canol Farm by way of constructive trust or proprietary estoppel.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties established a common intention to share beneficial ownership of the farm.
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel arose from representations, reliance, and unconscionable disadvantage.

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish a common intention, whether express or inferred from conduct, that the claimant should acquire a beneficial interest in Ty Canol Farm. The claimant's contributions and involvement were insufficient to support a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. The judge erred in finding otherwise, as the requisite legal tests were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the lower court set aside.

Orders

  • The challenged paragraphs of the judge's order, including the declaration of a beneficial interest and associated monetary orders, are set aside.