English & Ors v Keats & Ors [2018] EWHC 673 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

English & Ors v Keats & Ors [2018] EWHC 673 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

The court held that proprietary estoppel did not apply due to lack of detriment and because the estoppel sought would improperly bind parties beyond the representor and representee, including HMRC. However, the court found that the defective execution of the Deeds of Appointment could be remedied in equity, as all trustees intended to exercise the power, attempted to do so, and the defect was formal. The Deeds were thus effective to give the claimants an interest in possession under their respective settlements.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 673 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sarah Elizabeth English; Claimant: Simon Marcus Thunder; Claimant: Annabel Jane Lohmeyer; Defendant: Terence Ivor Keats; Defendant: Paul Douglas Sansom; Defendant: John James Buchanan; Defendant: Isabella Mary English
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Property Trusts and Probate / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Defective Execution of Deeds, Powers of Appointment, Proprietary Estoppel, Rectification, Trustee Powers
Equity Trusts and Estates Defective Execution of Deeds Powers of Appointment Proprietary Estoppel Rectification Trustee Powers

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Elizabeth English

Claimant

Simon Marcus Thunder

Claimant

Annabel Jane Lohmeyer

Claimant

Terence Ivor Keats

Defendant

Paul Douglas Sansom

Defendant

John James Buchanan

Defendant

Isabella Mary English

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Property Trusts and Probate / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel can remedy a defectively executed deed of appointment under a trust
  2. 2 Whether the court can remedy a defective execution of a power of appointment by trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that proprietary estoppel did not apply due to lack of detriment and because the estoppel sought would improperly bind parties beyond the representor and representee, including HMRC. However, the court found that the defective execution of the Deeds of Appointment could be remedied in equity, as all trustees intended to exercise the power, attempted to do so, and the defect was formal. The Deeds were thus effective to give the claimants an interest in possession under their respective settlements.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • The Deeds of Appointment under Settlements 4 to 6 are effective to give Sarah, Simon, and Annabel an interest in possession under their respective settlements.
  • Claim for proprietary estoppel dismissed.