Sean Preson & Anor v Ivan Preson & Ors

Sean Preson & Anor v Ivan Preson & Ors

There was a common intention at the time of purchase that the Disputed Land and the Three Fields would be owned jointly by Ivan, Wendy, Sean, and Janina in equal shares, and Sean and Janina relied on this to their detriment by contributing half the purchase price. The only reason for the legal division of title was to minimise stamp duty land tax. The alternative claims in proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, and partnership property fail.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Sean Preson; Claimant: Mrs Janina Preson; Defendant: Mr Ivan Preson; Defendant: Mrs Wendy Preson; Defendant: Mr Ivan Dean Preson; Defendant: Mrs Suzanne Joan Cooke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Beneficial Ownership, Family Property Disputes, Partnership Property, Proprietary Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment
Trusts Property Law Equity Common Intention Constructive Trust Beneficial Ownership Family Property Disputes Partnership Property Proprietary Estoppel +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sean Preson

Claimant

Mrs Janina Preson

Claimant

Mr Ivan Preson

Defendant

Mrs Wendy Preson

Defendant

Mr Ivan Dean Preson

Defendant

Mrs Suzanne Joan Cooke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a common intention constructive trust over the Disputed Land and the Three Fields at Springfield Farm
  2. 2 Whether proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, or partnership property principles apply

Ratio Decidendi

There was a common intention at the time of purchase that the Disputed Land and the Three Fields would be owned jointly by Ivan, Wendy, Sean, and Janina in equal shares, and Sean and Janina relied on this to their detriment by contributing half the purchase price. The only reason for the legal division of title was to minimise stamp duty land tax. The alternative claims in proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, and partnership property fail.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the Disputed Land (excluding the Triangle) and the Three Fields are held on trust for Ivan, Wendy, Sean, and Janina as tenants in common in equal shares.
  • Third and Fourth Defendants (trustees) hold the Disputed Land (excluding the Triangle) as to 50% for Sean and Janina as tenants in common in equal shares and as to the remaining 50% upon the terms of the settlement.