Farrar v Miller [2018] EWCA Civ 172 (14 February 2018)

Farrar v Miller [2018] EWCA Civ 172 (14 February 2018)

Permission to amend pleadings to allege constructive trust and proprietary estoppel was properly granted; the facts alleged by Mr Farrar raised a real prospect of success for both claims. The constructive trust claim was not barred by the parties' prior ownership or statutory formalities. Proprietary estoppel may operate independently of s.2(1) LPA 1989, and the claim was sufficiently clear and based on detrimental reliance. The judge erred in refusing permission to plead breach of fiduciary duty, as the facts could establish a fiduciary relationship between joint venturers. Limitation arguments require determination at trial.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 172
Parties
Claimant/respondent (in Appeal 3780), Appellant (in Appeal 3788): Peter Farrar; Defendant/appellant (in Appeal 3780), Respondent (in Appeal 3788): David Charles Lawson Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Permission to Amend Pleadings; Interlocutory Appeals
Outcome
Appeal by Mr Miller dismissed; appeal by Mr Farrar allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture, Limitation Periods
Equity Property Law Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Breach of Fiduciary Duty Joint Venture Limitation Periods

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Farrar

Claimant/respondent (in Appeal 3780), Appellant (in Appeal 3788)

David Charles Lawson Miller

Defendant/appellant (in Appeal 3780), Respondent (in Appeal 3788)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) / Permission to Amend Pleadings; Interlocutory Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend pleadings to allege constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, and breach of fiduciary duty
  2. 2 Whether a Pallant v Morgan constructive trust can arise where parties already own the property
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel can circumvent statutory formalities under s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend pleadings to allege constructive trust and proprietary estoppel was properly granted; the facts alleged by Mr Farrar raised a real prospect of success for both claims. The constructive trust claim was not barred by the parties' prior ownership or statutory formalities. Proprietary estoppel may operate independently of s.2(1) LPA 1989, and the claim was sufficiently clear and based on detrimental reliance. The judge erred in refusing permission to plead breach of fiduciary duty, as the facts could establish a fiduciary relationship between joint venturers. Limitation arguments require determination at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Mr Miller dismissed; appeal by Mr Farrar allowed in part.

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim to allege constructive trust and proprietary estoppel upheld.
  • Permission to amend particulars of claim to allege breach of fiduciary duty granted.