Whittaker v Kinnear [2011] EWHC 1479 (QB) (10 June 2011)

Whittaker v Kinnear [2011] EWHC 1479 (QB) (10 June 2011)

There is no binding authority definitively resolving whether proprietary estoppel or constructive trust can override section 2 of the 1989 Act in a commercial property sale context where the parties intended a formal contract but did not record the alleged assurances. The facts are not sufficiently clear for summary determination, and the claim is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The summary order for possession must be set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1479
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Alvina Whittaker; Claimant/respondent: Anthony David Kinnear (acting by his agents on Gershinson and Louise Brooks of Allsop LLP being Receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (possession Proceedings) / Appeal From County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order for possession set aside; case remitted for trial.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Formalities for Disposition of Land, Possession Proceedings, Overriding Interests, Tenancy Law
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Formalities for Disposition of Land Possession Proceedings Overriding Interests +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alvina Whittaker

Defendant/appellant

Anthony David Kinnear (acting by his agents on Gershinson and Louise Brooks of Allsop LLP being Receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925)

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (possession Proceedings) / Appeal From County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel or constructive trust can arise in favour of the appellant despite non-compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 in a commercial property sale context
  2. 2 Whether the possession claim is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds under CPR Rule 55.8
  3. 3 Whether the notices to quit were valid and effectively terminated the tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

There is no binding authority definitively resolving whether proprietary estoppel or constructive trust can override section 2 of the 1989 Act in a commercial property sale context where the parties intended a formal contract but did not record the alleged assurances. The facts are not sufficiently clear for summary determination, and the claim is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The summary order for possession must be set aside and the matter remitted for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order for possession set aside; case remitted for trial.

Orders

  • Order for possession set aside.
  • Case remitted to Colchester County Court for trial.