Campbell -v- Campbell [2017] JRC 108 (06 July 2017)

Campbell -v- Campbell [2017] JRC 108 (06 July 2017)

The Court found, based on the evidence and the principles of common intention constructive trust and resulting trust, that Richard is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in the capital and interest of the Longton loans. The arrangement between the brothers, supported by documentation and conduct, established a common intention for equal sharing. The Court preferred Richard's evidence and found Robert's arguments unpersuasive. The claim for unjust enrichment was also upheld as an alternative basis.

Citation
[2017] JRC 108
Parties
Applicant: Richard Andrew Campbell; Respondent: Robert Campbell
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for applicant
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Beneficial Ownership, Family Business Dispute
Trusts Property Company Law Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Unjust Enrichment Beneficial Ownership Family Business Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Andrew Campbell

Applicant

Robert Campbell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Richard is entitled to share in the capital and interest of loans made to Longton Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Whether a common intention constructive trust or resulting trust exists regarding the Longton loans
  3. 3 Whether unjust enrichment applies to Richard's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found, based on the evidence and the principles of common intention constructive trust and resulting trust, that Richard is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in the capital and interest of the Longton loans. The arrangement between the brothers, supported by documentation and conduct, established a common intention for equal sharing. The Court preferred Richard's evidence and found Robert's arguments unpersuasive. The claim for unjust enrichment was also upheld as an alternative basis.

Court Disposition

judgment for applicant

Orders

  • Richard is entitled to 50% of the capital and interest of the Longton loans
  • Robert must account to Richard for his share of the Longton loans