Brierley v Otuo & Ors [2022] EWHC 1530 (Ch) (28 June 2022)

Brierley v Otuo & Ors [2022] EWHC 1530 (Ch) (28 June 2022)

The requirements for estoppel by convention were not satisfied because the defendants did not rely solely on the claimant's redemption statement but also on their own assessment of the merits of their challenges, and there was no sufficient detriment or mutual dealing. Unassessed costs are not secured by the relevant charging orders and are not included in the sum required to discharge them.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1530 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (hc 2017 000147) / First Defendant (hc 2017 000158): David Raymond Brierley; First Defendant (hc 2017 000147) / Claimant (hc 2017 000158): Frank Otuo; Second Defendant (hc 2017 000147): Ruth Otuo; Third Defendant (hc 2017 000147): Jason Adu-Gyamfi; Fourth Defendant (hc 2017 000147): Jayana Thenuara; Second Defendant (hc 2017 000158): Lisa-Jayne Brierley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Post Trial Applications and Determination of Redemption Sum
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Estoppel by Convention, Charging Orders, Redemption of Charges, Assessment of Costs
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Estoppel by Convention Charging Orders Redemption of Charges Assessment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Raymond Brierley

Claimant (hc 2017 000147) / First Defendant (hc 2017 000158)

Frank Otuo

First Defendant (hc 2017 000147) / Claimant (hc 2017 000158)

Ruth Otuo

Second Defendant (hc 2017 000147)

Jason Adu-Gyamfi

Third Defendant (hc 2017 000147)

Jayana Thenuara

Fourth Defendant (hc 2017 000147)

Lisa-Jayne Brierley

Second Defendant (hc 2017 000158)

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Post Trial Applications and Determination of Redemption Sum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is estopped by convention from resiling from the redemption statement dated 22 October 2021
  2. 2 Whether unassessed costs are to be disregarded in determining the sum required to discharge all charging orders on the defendants' properties

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for estoppel by convention were not satisfied because the defendants did not rely solely on the claimant's redemption statement but also on their own assessment of the merits of their challenges, and there was no sufficient detriment or mutual dealing. Unassessed costs are not secured by the relevant charging orders and are not included in the sum required to discharge them.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The estoppel application is dismissed.
  • Unassessed costs are not included in the sum required to discharge the charging orders on Leigham Court Road.