Preedy & Anor v Dunne & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 805 (21 July 2016)

Preedy & Anor v Dunne & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 805 (21 July 2016)

There was no evidence of an expressly shared common assumption between the appellants and trustees that the trustees were partners in the pub business or liable for the renovation loans; the loans were made to the pub business, not the trustees, and no relevant promises or expectations were created or acquiesced in by the trustees or beneficiaries. Estoppel by convention was not established.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 805
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Raymond William Preedy; Claimant/respondent: Philip Thomas Baker; Defendant/appellant: Jonathan Anthony Dunne; Defendant/appellant: Blue Mango Investment Holdings Limited; Defendant/appellant: A3 Trading Limited (trading as Albert Arms Pub)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Estoppel by Convention, Trustee Authority, Partnerships, Contractual Licence
Trusts Property Law Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel Estoppel by Convention Trustee Authority Partnerships Contractual Licence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond William Preedy

Claimant/respondent

Philip Thomas Baker

Claimant/respondent

Jonathan Anthony Dunne

Defendant/appellant

Blue Mango Investment Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

A3 Trading Limited (trading as Albert Arms Pub)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether estoppel by convention was open to the appellants on appeal
  2. 2 Whether estoppel by convention was established on the facts
  3. 3 Whether trustees had authority to bind each other and the beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of an expressly shared common assumption between the appellants and trustees that the trustees were partners in the pub business or liable for the renovation loans; the loans were made to the pub business, not the trustees, and no relevant promises or expectations were created or acquiesced in by the trustees or beneficiaries. Estoppel by convention was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants granted permission to amend grounds of appeal and argue estoppel by convention
  • No relief granted to appellants; original judgment stands