London Borough of Brent v Johnson & Ors [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch) (01 October 2020)

London Borough of Brent v Johnson & Ors [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch) (01 October 2020)

Brent is the sole legal and beneficial owner of Bridge Park. The defendants have no standing to register a restriction. No resulting trust, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel, estoppel by convention, or charitable trust arises in favour of the defendants. Grant monies were paid to Brent for specific projects, not to HPCC, and the evidence does not support any beneficial interest for the defendants. Ownership was always vested in Brent, and the defendants' claims are not supported by contemporaneous documents or credible evidence.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent; First Defendant: Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of Harlesden Peoples Community Council); Second Defendant: Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited; Third Defendant: Her Majesty's Attorney-General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Property Trusts and Probate / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration granted that Brent is sole legal and beneficial owner. Defendants' claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Charitable Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Standing to Register Restriction
Property Law Equity Trusts Charity Law Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Charitable Trusts +2 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent

Claimant

Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of Harlesden Peoples Community Council)

First Defendant

Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited

Second Defendant

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Trusts and Probate / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have standing to register a restriction against the property
  2. 2 Whether the property is held on resulting trust for the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the property is held on constructive trust for the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Brent is the sole legal and beneficial owner of Bridge Park. The defendants have no standing to register a restriction. No resulting trust, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel, estoppel by convention, or charitable trust arises in favour of the defendants. Grant monies were paid to Brent for specific projects, not to HPCC, and the evidence does not support any beneficial interest for the defendants. Ownership was always vested in Brent, and the defendants' claims are not supported by contemporaneous documents or credible evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration granted that Brent is sole legal and beneficial owner. Defendants' claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that Brent is sole legal and beneficial owner of Bridge Park.
  • Order restraining registration of any restriction upon the Property's registered title in favour of the defendants.