Anderson Antiques (UK) Ltd v Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 2086 (Ch) (23 May 2007)

Anderson Antiques (UK) Ltd v Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 2086 (Ch) (23 May 2007)

The defendants' case for a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust is not credible, is contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and is further defeated by their participation in the tender process without protest; the notices were applied for without reasonable cause and must be cancelled; the second defendant is jointly liable as procurer.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2086 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Anderson Antiques (UK) Limited; First Defendant: Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd; Second Defendant: Philip Robert Akrill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application for Summary Judgment, Judgment in Default, or Interim Injunctions Pending Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Summary Judgment, Land Registration, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Section 77 Land Registration Act 2002, Injunctions, Damages for Wrongful Notice
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Summary Judgment Land Registration Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anderson Antiques (UK) Limited

Claimant

Anderson Wharf (Hull) Ltd

First Defendant

Philip Robert Akrill

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application for Summary Judgment, Judgment in Default, or Interim Injunctions Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a reasonable prospect of establishing a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust based on an alleged oral agreement for the sale of land
  2. 2 Whether the notices registered by the first defendant at HM Land Registry were applied for without reasonable cause under section 77 of the Land Registration Act 2002
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant is jointly liable as a procurer of the tort

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' case for a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust is not credible, is contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and is further defeated by their participation in the tender process without protest; the notices were applied for without reasonable cause and must be cancelled; the second defendant is jointly liable as procurer.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that the first defendant has no interest in the site
  • Order for cancellation of the notices registered by the first defendant at HM Land Registry