Heath v Heath & Anor

Heath v Heath & Anor

Specific performance of the 1997 agreement is refused due to mistake (the 1st Defendant was induced to enter the agreement by the deceased’s misrepresentation that their son was the beneficiary of his estate) and delay in seeking enforcement. However, the agreement did effect a severance of the beneficial interest, so the property is held on trust for the Claimant and 1st Defendant in equal shares.

Parties
Claimant: Mary Ann Heath (as Administratrix of the estate of Reginald Heath); 1st Defendant: Jacqueline Heath; 2nd Defendant: Kelly Ann Heath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (property/trusts) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Specific performance refused; declaration of trust in equal shares; no order for sale; no family provision ordered.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Severance of Joint Tenancy, Intestacy, Undue Influence, Mistake, Delay in Equitable Remedies, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Property Law Equity and Trusts Family Law Specific Performance Severance of Joint Tenancy Intestacy Undue Influence Mistake +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Ann Heath (as Administratrix of the estate of Reginald Heath)

Claimant

Jacqueline Heath

1st Defendant

Kelly Ann Heath

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (property/trusts) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of 8 August 1997 for sale of the 1st Defendant’s share is specifically enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the beneficial interest in the property was severed
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to the whole property by survivorship

Ratio Decidendi

Specific performance of the 1997 agreement is refused due to mistake (the 1st Defendant was induced to enter the agreement by the deceased’s misrepresentation that their son was the beneficiary of his estate) and delay in seeking enforcement. However, the agreement did effect a severance of the beneficial interest, so the property is held on trust for the Claimant and 1st Defendant in equal shares.

Court Disposition

Specific performance refused; declaration of trust in equal shares; no order for sale; no family provision ordered.

Orders

  • Declaration that the property is held on trust for the Claimant and 1st Defendant in equal shares.
  • Claimant may remain in occupation provided she pays all outgoings and maintains the property.