Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC Ch 1405 (25 April 2002)
The mutual wills agreement between Mr and Mrs Brown was not enforceable as a contract due to non-compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, but a constructive trust arises over the half-share of the flat acquired by Mr Brown from Mrs Brown, as it would be unconscionable to frustrate Mrs Brown's intention and the Claimant's expectation. The First Defendant holds the flat on trust for himself and the Claimant in equal shares.
- Citation
- [2002] EWHC Ch 1405
- Parties
- Claimant: Jacqueline Healey; First Defendant: Paul Brown; Second Defendant: Stanley Saffer
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 April 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Partially in favour of the Claimant
- Legal Topics
- Mutual Wills, Constructive Trusts, Secret Trusts, Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Disposition of Land, Joint Tenancy, Doctrine of Survivorship
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jacqueline Healey
Claimant
Paul Brown
First Defendant
Stanley Saffer
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether mutual wills executed by Mr and Mrs Brown created enforceable obligations restricting the survivor's disposition of property
- 2 Whether the transfer of the flat by Mr Brown to himself and the First Defendant breached the mutual wills agreement
- 3 Whether section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 precludes enforcement of the mutual wills agreement as a contract
Ratio Decidendi
The mutual wills agreement between Mr and Mrs Brown was not enforceable as a contract due to non-compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, but a constructive trust arises over the half-share of the flat acquired by Mr Brown from Mrs Brown, as it would be unconscionable to frustrate Mrs Brown's intention and the Claimant's expectation. The First Defendant holds the flat on trust for himself and the Claimant in equal shares.
Court Disposition
Partially in favour of the Claimant
Orders
- Declaration that the property at 3 Phoenix Court is held on trust by the First Defendant for himself and the Claimant in equal shares
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment