Wild v Wild & Ors [2018] EWHC 2197 (Ch) (31 August 2018)

Wild v Wild & Ors [2018] EWHC 2197 (Ch) (31 August 2018)

The Farm and Bungalow were not partnership assets. Although the Farm was included in the partnership accounts, the evidence did not establish an agreement or intention by Ben Wild and the First Defendant to bring the Farm into the partnership. The use of the Farm by the partnership and expenditure on it were consistent with a licence to use, not a transfer of beneficial ownership. The Bungalow was similarly not a partnership asset. The First and Third Defendants did not establish a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust in their favour over the Bungalow.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2197 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Gregory Wild; First Defendant: Malcolm Wild; Second Defendant: Jean Wild; Third Defendant: Abigail Wild
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute / Chancery / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed as to the Farm and Bungalow being partnership assets.
Legal Topics
Partnership Assets, Beneficial Ownership, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Winding Up of Partnership, Farming Partnerships
Partnership Law Property Law Equity Partnership Assets Beneficial Ownership Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Winding Up of Partnership +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Wild

Claimant

Malcolm Wild

First Defendant

Jean Wild

Second Defendant

Abigail Wild

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute / Chancery / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Beard Hall Farm and High View Bungalow are partnership assets
  2. 2 Whether First and Third Defendants have an interest in the Bungalow by proprietary estoppel or constructive trust
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a share in the Farm and Bungalow on winding up

Ratio Decidendi

The Farm and Bungalow were not partnership assets. Although the Farm was included in the partnership accounts, the evidence did not establish an agreement or intention by Ben Wild and the First Defendant to bring the Farm into the partnership. The use of the Farm by the partnership and expenditure on it were consistent with a licence to use, not a transfer of beneficial ownership. The Bungalow was similarly not a partnership asset. The First and Third Defendants did not establish a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust in their favour over the Bungalow.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as to the Farm and Bungalow being partnership assets.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Farm and Bungalow are not partnership assets and are not to be brought into account in the winding up.
  • No proprietary estoppel or constructive trust established in favour of the First and Third Defendants over the Bungalow.