Kastner v Jason & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 December 2004)

Kastner v Jason & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1599 (02 December 2004)

A freezing order made by arbitrators under Jewish law, even when accompanied by a promise to abide by it, does not create a proprietary or security interest in land under English law. Such an order operates only in personam and cannot be transmuted into an equitable remedy binding on third parties, even those with constructive notice. Proprietary estoppel or constructive trust cannot arise in the absence of clear assurance, reliance, and detriment, none of which were established against the Shermans. English law cannot provide a remedy where Jewish law does not confer a proprietary interest.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1599
Parties
Appellant: Ernst Kastner; Respondent: Marc Jason; Respondent: Davis Sherman; Respondent: Brigitte Sherman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Arbitration Under Foreign Law, Land Registration, Remedies in Equity
Arbitration Property Law Equity Freezing Orders Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Arbitration Under Foreign Law Land Registration +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Kastner

Appellant

Marc Jason

Respondent

Davis Sherman

Respondent

Brigitte Sherman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing order made by arbitrators under Jewish law creates a proprietary or security interest in land under English law
  2. 2 Whether a promise to abide by such an order gives rise to a proprietary estoppel or constructive trust binding on third parties with constructive notice
  3. 3 Whether English law provides a remedy where Jewish law does not

Ratio Decidendi

A freezing order made by arbitrators under Jewish law, even when accompanied by a promise to abide by it, does not create a proprietary or security interest in land under English law. Such an order operates only in personam and cannot be transmuted into an equitable remedy binding on third parties, even those with constructive notice. Proprietary estoppel or constructive trust cannot arise in the absence of clear assurance, reliance, and detriment, none of which were established against the Shermans. English law cannot provide a remedy where Jewish law does not confer a proprietary interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed