Booth v Booth & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 27 (05 February 2010)

Booth v Booth & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 27 (05 February 2010)

The appeal was dismissed because the second claim, though potentially unfair to Norman, had progressed too far for strike out; Norman had not acquiesced, but the merits-based assessment did not justify striking out. Laches did not bar the claim as there was no deliberate delay or prejudice. The 1992 transfer was a genuine gift to Lucy, not a resulting trust.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 27
Parties
Appellant: Norman Booth; Respondent: Herbert Booth; Respondent: Barbara May Conacher; Respondent: Joan Mary Farmiloe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Laches, Resulting Trusts, Presumption of Advancement, Intestacy, Devastavit
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Abuse of Process Laches Resulting Trusts Presumption of Advancement Intestacy Devastavit

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Booth

Appellant

Herbert Booth

Respondent

Barbara May Conacher

Respondent

Joan Mary Farmiloe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claim is barred by laches
  3. 3 Whether the 1992 transfer of the farmhouse and cottages to Lucy Booth was a gift or held on trust

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the second claim, though potentially unfair to Norman, had progressed too far for strike out; Norman had not acquiesced, but the merits-based assessment did not justify striking out. Laches did not bar the claim as there was no deliberate delay or prejudice. The 1992 transfer was a genuine gift to Lucy, not a resulting trust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Second claim not struck out as abuse of process
  • Claim not barred by laches