Kerr & Anor (as Trustees) v Maass [2019] EWHC 95 (Ch) (29 January 2019)

Kerr & Anor (as Trustees) v Maass [2019] EWHC 95 (Ch) (29 January 2019)

The defendant's proprietary estoppel by acquiescence fails because the claimants did not know of any mistaken belief by the defendant as to his rights, nor was such belief communicated. There was no relevant detriment or unconscionability. The counterclaim for disrepair succeeds as the landlord was aware of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 95 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Milo Kerr as Trustee of the Haie Estate; Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Pamela Travis as Trustee of the Haie Estate; Defendant/counterclaimant: Christian Maass
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Possession and Counterclaim for Proprietary Estoppel and Disrepair / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for possession succeeds; counterclaim for proprietary estoppel dismissed; counterclaim for disrepair succeeds in part.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Assured Shorthold Tenancy, Repairing Obligations, Counterclaim for Disrepair
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Assured Shorthold Tenancy Repairing Obligations Counterclaim for Disrepair

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milo Kerr as Trustee of the Haie Estate

Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Pamela Travis as Trustee of the Haie Estate

Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Christian Maass

Defendant/counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Counterclaim for Proprietary Estoppel and Disrepair / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel by acquiescence prevents possession being granted to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to damages for disrepair under s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's proprietary estoppel by acquiescence fails because the claimants did not know of any mistaken belief by the defendant as to his rights, nor was such belief communicated. There was no relevant detriment or unconscionability. The counterclaim for disrepair succeeds as the landlord was aware of significant disrepair from 2014, and the defendant is entitled to £5,000 in damages.

Court Disposition

Claim for possession succeeds; counterclaim for proprietary estoppel dismissed; counterclaim for disrepair succeeds in part.

Orders

  • Possession of Arams Farmhouse granted to claimants
  • Damages of £5,000 awarded to defendant for disrepair