Shield v Shield

Shield v Shield

The judge found as a fact that there was no binding agreement or commitment between Richard and Christopher Shield regarding the bequest of shares, only a revocable intention. The parties had expressly agreed, following tax advice, not to make any binding agreement. Without such a commitment, no constructive trust or proprietary estoppel could arise. The findings of fact were fatal to Christopher's claim and appeal.

Parties
Applicant/intervenor: Christopher Shield; First Respondent/applicant: Susan Jennifer Shield; Second Respondent/respondent: Richard Arthur Shield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/trusts) / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Financial Relief on Divorce, Testamentary Promises
Family Law Trusts and Equity Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Financial Relief on Divorce Testamentary Promises

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Shield

Applicant/intervenor

Susan Jennifer Shield

First Respondent/applicant

Richard Arthur Shield

Second Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/trusts) / Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow If Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel arose in favour of Christopher Shield over Richard Shield's shares in R.A. Shield Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding agreement or commitment by Richard Shield to bequeath his shares to Christopher Shield

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found as a fact that there was no binding agreement or commitment between Richard and Christopher Shield regarding the bequest of shares, only a revocable intention. The parties had expressly agreed, following tax advice, not to make any binding agreement. Without such a commitment, no constructive trust or proprietary estoppel could arise. The findings of fact were fatal to Christopher's claim and appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend grounds of appeal refused
  • Permission to appeal refused