Popely v Heltfield Properties Ltd.& Ors

Popely v Heltfield Properties Ltd.& Ors

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed to the purchase price or that there was an agreement entitling him to a beneficial interest in the land. His evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The evidence did not establish a trust in his favour, nor that any interest survived subsequent transfers. No effective gift to his son was proved, but as no beneficial interest was established, the claim failed.

Parties
Claimant: John Henry Popely; First Defendant: Heltfield Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Stephen Blake; Third Defendant: Spacegain Limited; Fourth Defendant: Maltcrown Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Beneficial Ownership, Land Registration, Gifts of Land
Property Law Equity Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Beneficial Ownership Land Registration Gifts of Land

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Henry Popely

Claimant

Heltfield Properties Limited

First Defendant

Stephen Blake

Second Defendant

Spacegain Limited

Third Defendant

Maltcrown Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established a beneficial interest in the land by resulting or constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether any such interest survived transfers between companies
  3. 3 Whether the claimant gifted any interest to his son

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed to the purchase price or that there was an agreement entitling him to a beneficial interest in the land. His evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The evidence did not establish a trust in his favour, nor that any interest survived subsequent transfers. No effective gift to his son was proved, but as no beneficial interest was established, the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's caution at HM Land Registry is to be vacated.