Clarke & Anor v Corless & Anor

Clarke & Anor v Corless & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was some consensus in January 2003 about removing Allum and acquiring the land for the residents, the claimants did not rely on the agreement up to the time of the defendants' purchase, and there was no unconscionability sufficient to impose a constructive trust.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Simon Baynes Clarke; Claimant/appellant: Sarah Baynes Clarke; Defendant/respondent: Michael Corless; Defendant/respondent: Joanne Corless
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Joint Venture Arrangements, Unconscionability
Equity Property Law Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Joint Venture Arrangements Unconscionability

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Baynes Clarke

Claimant/appellant

Sarah Baynes Clarke

Claimant/appellant

Michael Corless

Defendant/respondent

Joanne Corless

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the January 2003 agreement was sufficient to impose a constructive trust on the defendants' acquisition of land
  2. 2 Whether the claimants relied on the agreement up to the time of the defendants' purchase

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was some consensus in January 2003 about removing Allum and acquiring the land for the residents, the claimants did not rely on the agreement up to the time of the defendants' purchase, and there was no unconscionability sufficient to impose a constructive trust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed