Farrar v Miller

Farrar v Miller

The facts pleaded by Mr Farrar disclose a properly arguable case for a constructive trust in the Pallant v Morgan sense, and for proprietary estoppel, both of which have a real prospect of success and are not barred as a matter of law by s.2 of the 1989 Act. The claim for breach of fiduciary duty is also properly arguable on the facts, as the relationship and entrustment of responsibilities could give rise to such duties. The limitation point does not bar the fiduciary claim as it is a claim for recovery of trust property to which no limitation period applies under s.21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Peter Farrar; Defendant/respondent: David Charles Lawson Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal by Mr Miller dismissed; appeal by Mr Farrar allowed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Fiduciary Duties, Joint Ventures, Limitation Periods
Equity Trusts Property Law Contract Law Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Fiduciary Duties Joint Ventures +1 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Farrar

Claimant/appellant

David Charles Lawson Miller

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the facts pleaded disclose a properly arguable case for a Pallant v Morgan constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether proprietary estoppel can be pleaded in light of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is properly arguable on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The facts pleaded by Mr Farrar disclose a properly arguable case for a constructive trust in the Pallant v Morgan sense, and for proprietary estoppel, both of which have a real prospect of success and are not barred as a matter of law by s.2 of the 1989 Act. The claim for breach of fiduciary duty is also properly arguable on the facts, as the relationship and entrustment of responsibilities could give rise to such duties. The limitation point does not bar the fiduciary claim as it is a claim for recovery of trust property to which no limitation period applies under s.21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Permission to amend the particulars of claim to plead constructive trust and proprietary estoppel confirmed.
  • Permission to amend to plead breach of fiduciary duty granted.