Herbert v Doyle & Anor

Herbert v Doyle & Anor

The oral agreement of April 2003 was sufficiently certain and complete to create a constructive trust under section 2(5) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, as interpreted in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd. The parties intended to be immediately bound, the interests in land were identifiable, and the court could fill gaps by necessary implication. The judge’s findings of fact were not plainly wrong, and the costs orders and permission to amend were within discretion. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Julian Roger Herbert; Respondent: Leonard Doyle; Respondent: Xerxes Keki Talati
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal With Appeal to Follow If Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused except as indicated; costs orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trusts, Proprietary Estoppel, Certainty of Contractual Terms, Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Costs Orders
Property Law Equity Constructive Trusts Proprietary Estoppel Certainty of Contractual Terms Section 2 Law of Property (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 Costs Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Roger Herbert

Appellant

Leonard Doyle

Respondent

Xerxes Keki Talati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal With Appeal to Follow If Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral agreement of April 2003 created a constructive trust compliant with section 2(5) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 as interpreted in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was sufficiently certain and complete to be enforceable as a constructive trust
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in permitting amendments to pleadings post-judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The oral agreement of April 2003 was sufficiently certain and complete to create a constructive trust under section 2(5) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, as interpreted in Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd. The parties intended to be immediately bound, the interests in land were identifiable, and the court could fill gaps by necessary implication. The judge’s findings of fact were not plainly wrong, and the costs orders and permission to amend were within discretion. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused except as indicated; costs orders upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on all grounds for which permission was granted
  • Applications for permission to appeal, to amend grounds, and for extension of time refused