Kinane v Mackie-Conteh

Kinane v Mackie-Conteh

The security agreement, though not compliant with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act, is enforceable as a constructive trust under section 2(5) because Mr Kinane advanced the loan in reliance on the agreement and was encouraged to do so by Mr Mackie-Conteh, making it unconscionable for Mr Mackie-Conteh to deny the security interest.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent / Cross Appellant: David Kinane; Defendant / Appellant / Cross Respondent: Alimamy Mackie-Conteh; Defendant: Almack Marketing Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Equitable Charges, Formalities for Disposition of Interests in Land
Equity Land Law Contract Law Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Equitable Charges Formalities for Disposition of Interests in 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kinane

Claimant / Respondent / Cross Appellant

Alimamy Mackie-Conteh

Defendant / Appellant / Cross Respondent

Almack Marketing Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the security agreement was enforceable despite non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust arose to take the agreement outside section 2(1) under section 2(5) of the 1989 Act
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel or section 53(1)(c) or (a) of the Law of Property Act 1925 applied

Ratio Decidendi

The security agreement, though not compliant with section 2(1) of the 1989 Act, is enforceable as a constructive trust under section 2(5) because Mr Kinane advanced the loan in reliance on the agreement and was encouraged to do so by Mr Mackie-Conteh, making it unconscionable for Mr Mackie-Conteh to deny the security interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Kinane is an equitable chargee under an equitable charge of 141 Willersley Avenue, Sidcup, Kent in the sum of £100,000.
  • Order for sale of the property.