Horton & Anor v Brandish [2005] EWHC B15 (Ch) (29 July 2005)

Horton & Anor v Brandish [2005] EWHC B15 (Ch) (29 July 2005)

The son and Ash Waste Limited had no subsisting proprietary estoppel claim to Yard 2 as any equity was satisfied by the transfer of Yard 1 and subsequent agreements; the caution was not maintainable. There was no binding and enforceable joint venture agreement due to lack of certainty on essential terms. The father's conduct was not in the affairs of Ash Waste Limited and did not amount to unfair prejudice.

Citation
[2005] EWHC B15 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant/claimant (son): Andrew Brandish; Respondent/defendant (father): David Brandish; Applicant/claimant (company): Ash Waste Limited; Respondent/defendant (transferee of Yard 2): Mr Horton; Respondent/defendant (transferee of Yard 2): Mr Ketcher
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery/property/company Law / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims by the son and Ash Waste Limited dismissed; caution to be removed; Horton and Ketcher entitled to mesne profits for occupation of Yard 2 by the son from 19 March 2004 to August 2004; joint venture and damages claims dismissed; unfair prejudice petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Land Registration, Joint Venture, Unfair Prejudice (companies), Mesne Profits
Property Law Equity Company Law Proprietary Estoppel Land Registration Joint Venture Unfair Prejudice (companies) Mesne Profits

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Brandish

Applicant/claimant (son)

David Brandish

Respondent/defendant (father)

Ash Waste Limited

Applicant/claimant (company)

Mr Horton

Respondent/defendant (transferee of Yard 2)

Mr Ketcher

Respondent/defendant (transferee of Yard 2)

Procedural Posture

Chancery/property/company Law / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the son or Ash Waste Limited have rights to Yard 2 by proprietary estoppel against the father and/or transferees
  2. 2 Whether the caution registered by the son is maintainable against Horton and Ketcher
  3. 3 Whether there was a binding joint venture agreement between the son and Horton/Ketcher and if so, whether damages are payable for its breach

Ratio Decidendi

The son and Ash Waste Limited had no subsisting proprietary estoppel claim to Yard 2 as any equity was satisfied by the transfer of Yard 1 and subsequent agreements; the caution was not maintainable. There was no binding and enforceable joint venture agreement due to lack of certainty on essential terms. The father's conduct was not in the affairs of Ash Waste Limited and did not amount to unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Claims by the son and Ash Waste Limited dismissed; caution to be removed; Horton and Ketcher entitled to mesne profits for occupation of Yard 2 by the son from 19 March 2004 to August 2004; joint venture and damages claims dismissed; unfair prejudice petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismissal of proprietary estoppel and unfair prejudice claims by the son and Ash Waste Limited
  • Order for removal of caution against Yard 2