English & Ors v Keats & Ors

English & Ors v Keats & Ors

The court held that proprietary estoppel did not apply because the claimants suffered no detriment and the estoppel sought would improperly bind all parties, including non-claimant beneficiaries and third parties. However, the court found that the equitable doctrine allowing the remedy of defective execution of a power applied, as all trustees intended to execute the Deeds and the defect was merely formal. Thus, the Deeds were effective to give the claimants an interest in possession under their respective settlements.

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
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Defective Execution of Deeds, Powers of Appointment, Proprietary Estoppel, Rectification of Trust Documents
Trusts and Equity Property Law Defective Execution of Deeds Powers of Appointment Proprietary Estoppel Rectification of Trust Documents

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

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel can remedy defectively executed deeds of appointment under trusts
  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 because the claimants suffered no detriment and the estoppel sought would improperly bind all parties, including non-claimant beneficiaries and third parties. However, the court found that the equitable doctrine allowing the remedy of defective execution of a power applied, as all trustees intended to execute the Deeds and the defect was merely formal. Thus, the Deeds were 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.
  • No relief granted on the basis of proprietary estoppel.