Scott v Bridge & Ors

Scott v Bridge & Ors

The claimant did not intend to make gifts of the purchase price of 1 Southgate or the funds transferred to the third defendant; she is entitled to restitution of those sums but not a proprietary remedy. The transfer of 13 Lacy Street was not validly executed and did not reflect the claimant’s intention; the register is to be rectified to restore her as proprietor. The third defendant’s claim for indemnity against David Scott fails except as to repayment of proven loans.

Parties
Claimant: Lorina Scott; Defendant: Melvin Bridge; Defendant: Anita Bridge; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Melvin Jesus Casas-Bridge; Part 20 Defendant: David Scott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/trusts/probate) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Part 20 claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Constructive Trusts, Unjust Enrichment, Gifts, Land Registration, Mistake, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation
Equity and Trusts Property Law Civil Procedure Resulting Trusts Constructive Trusts Unjust Enrichment Gifts Land Registration +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorina Scott

Claimant

Melvin Bridge

Defendant

Anita Bridge

Defendant

Melvin Jesus Casas-Bridge

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

David Scott

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/trusts/probate) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant intended to make a gift of the purchase price of 1 Southgate to the defendants or to acquire a beneficial interest
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of 13 Lacy Street to the third defendant was valid and effective
  3. 3 Whether the transfers of money from the claimant’s account to the third defendant were authorised or recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not intend to make gifts of the purchase price of 1 Southgate or the funds transferred to the third defendant; she is entitled to restitution of those sums but not a proprietary remedy. The transfer of 13 Lacy Street was not validly executed and did not reflect the claimant’s intention; the register is to be rectified to restore her as proprietor. The third defendant’s claim for indemnity against David Scott fails except as to repayment of proven loans.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Part 20 claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • First and second defendants to pay the claimant the sum of £34,302 for 1 Southgate.
  • The register of 13 Lacy Street to be rectified to show the claimant as proprietor.