McGuinness v Preece & Ors [2016] EWHC 1518 (Ch) (24 June 2016)

McGuinness v Preece & Ors [2016] EWHC 1518 (Ch) (24 June 2016)

The claimant failed to prove purchase or adverse possession of Plot 3; there was no clear enough assurance or detrimental reliance to establish proprietary estoppel or constructive trust over the Yard or Whitfield Road land; the grandfather clock was not effectively gifted due to lack of delivery; the Morris lorry was purchased by the claimant and must be delivered up to him; the Company is liable to pay mesne profits to the first defendant.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1518 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr David James McGuinness; First Defendant (personal Representative and Beneficiary of Edith May Mc Guinness, Deceased): Mrs Denise Marie Preece; Second Defendant: Liam Philip Preece; Third Party: F. McGuinness & Sons Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Probate/trusts/estates Dispute / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed except as to the Morris lorry; counterclaim for mesne profits succeeds.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Adverse Possession, Gifts, Mesne Profits
Equity and Trusts Property Law Probate Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Adverse Possession Gifts 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David James McGuinness

Claimant

Mrs Denise Marie Preece

First Defendant (personal Representative and Beneficiary of Edith May Mc Guinness, Deceased)

Liam Philip Preece

Second Defendant

F. McGuinness & Sons Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Probate/trusts/estates Dispute / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant acquired title to Plot 3 by purchase or adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to a share in the Yard (the property) by proprietary estoppel or constructive trust
  3. 3 Ownership of Whitfield Road land

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove purchase or adverse possession of Plot 3; there was no clear enough assurance or detrimental reliance to establish proprietary estoppel or constructive trust over the Yard or Whitfield Road land; the grandfather clock was not effectively gifted due to lack of delivery; the Morris lorry was purchased by the claimant and must be delivered up to him; the Company is liable to pay mesne profits to the first defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except as to the Morris lorry; counterclaim for mesne profits succeeds.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant is entitled to the Morris lorry and order for its delivery up.
  • Declaration that the claimant has no interest in Plot 3, the Yard, Whitfield Road land, or the grandfather clock.