Source: http://selfbuildtimberframe.com/news-brightlingsea-haven-ltd-v-morris-queens-bench-division/
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 10:55:54
Document Index: 358940887

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art.2', 'art 1']

News - Brightlingsea Haven Ltd v Morris Queen's Bench Division - Self Build Timber Frame
News – Brightlingsea Haven Ltd v Morris Queen’s Bench Division
Brightlingsea Haven Ltd v Morris Queen’s Bench Division
[2008] EWHC 1928 (QB); [2009] 2 P. & C.R. 11; [2009] 1 E.G.L.R. 117; Official Transcript
Summary: There was no bar under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2(1) to owners of lodges on a caravan site being granted leases by way of constructive trusts. They had bought the lodges in the expectation they would be granted leases, giving rise to a proprietary estoppel; while the estoppel itself did not fall into the exception in s.2(5), it was open to the court to find constructive trusts in the owners’ favour.
Abstract: The claimant caravan park owner (B) sought an injunction preventing the defendant residents (R) occupying their lodges on the park during the day during winter. R sought a declaration as to their rights. B had sold R the lodges, which were assembled on site from two prefabricated sections and additional components. In accordance with the conditions of B’s site licence and lease, which required the park to be a seasonal caravan park only, B told R that they would be unable to occupy the lodges for a “closed period” of some months over winter. R used the lodges during the day but slept elsewhere during the closed period. B later asserted that R could not use the lodges during the day; in response, R began sleeping in the lodges as a protest. R submitted that (1) they had bought the lodges on the strength of B’s promises that it would grant them leases until the end of B’s own lease and that, although they would be unable to sleep in the lodges during the closed period, they would be able to use them during the day. They were entitled to rely on the creation of a constructive trust through proprietary estoppel, to avoid the bar on any assertion that they were contractually entitled to leases caused by the lack of a contract in writing. The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2(5) excepted constructive trusts from the provisions of s.2(1); (2) the lodges were not caravans within the meaning of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, meaning that no criminal offence had been caused under s.9(1) of the 1960 Act when they had breached the site conditions by sleeping in the lodges during the closed period.
Judgment accordingly. (1) Estoppels and equities apart, R held quarterly tenancies with no security of tenure, subject to a term that the lodges could not be occupied overnight during the closed period. There was no other term as to occupation. The instant case fitted the requirements to find a proprietary estoppel in Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] Q.B. 133 in that R had purchased their lodges in the expectation, encouraged by B, that B would grant them a lease, Taylors Fashions applied. While a proprietary estoppel was not excepted under s.2(5) of the 1989 Act, it was open to the court to find a constructive trust in favour of R, Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch. 162, Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45, [2005] W.T.L.R. 345 and Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752 considered. Section 2(1) of the 1989 Act was therefore no bar to R’s claims. (2) The lodges were caravans within s.13(1) of the 1968 Act. They were composed of two sections: the additional components could be easily removed without doing damage to the lodge itself, and they could be moved, when assembled, from one place to another. They did not have to be capable of being lawfully so moved, Howard v Charlton [2002] EWCA Civ 1086, [2003] 1 P. & C.R. 21 applied, nor did it have to be possible to move them from the places they actually were.
Judge: Jack, J.
Counsel: For the claimants: Anthony Tanney. For the first and second defendants: Stephen Cottle. For the third defendant: David Schmitz (pro bono).
Solicitor: For the claimants: Ellisons. For the first and second defendants: Shelter Legal Services.
[2009] EWHC 3061 (QB); [2009] 48 E.G. 103 (C.S.); Official Transcript; QBD
[2008] UKHL 55; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752; [2008] 4 All E.R. 713; [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 205; [2008] 3 E.G.L.R. 31; [2008] 35 E.G. 142; [2008] 36 E.G. 142; [2008] W.T.L.R. 1461; (2008-09) 11 I.T.E.L.R. 530; [2008] 31 E.G. 88 (C.S.); (2008) 152(31) S.J.L.B. 31; [2008] N.P.C. 95; Times, September 8, 2008; Official Transcript; HL
[2005] EWCA Civ 45; [2005] W.T.L.R. 345; [2005] 6 E.G. 140 (C.S.); (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 177; [2005] 2 P. & C.R. DG3; Official Transcript; CA (Civ Div)
[2000] Ch. 162; [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1217; [2000] 1 All E.R. 711; [1999] 2 F.L.R. 941; (2000) 32 H.L.R. 547; (2000) 79 P. & C.R. 91; [1999] 2 E.G.L.R. 181; [1999] Fam. Law 700; [1999] E.G. 92 (C.S.); (1999) 96(28) L.S.G. 25; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 198; [1999] N.P.C. 76; (1999) 78 P. & C.R. D33; Times, July 8, 1999; Independent, July 6, 1999; Official Transcript; CA (Civ Div)
[1982] Q.B. 133; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 576; [1981] 1 All E.R. 897; [1981] Com. L.R. 34; (1979) 251 E.G. 159; Ch D
Paragon Finance Plc v DB Thakerar & Co
[1999] 1 All E.R. 400; (1998) 95(35) L.S.G. 36; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 243; Times, August 7, 1998; CA (Civ Div)
Godden v Merthyr Tydfil Housing Association
[1997] N.P.C. 1; (1997) 74 P. & C.R. D1; CA (Civ Div)
Bankers Trust Co v Namdar
[1995] N.P.C. 139; Ch D
Atkinson (Valuation Officer) v Foster
[1996] R.A. 246; Lands Tr
[1995] 1 W.L.R. 269; [1995] 2 All E.R. 189; [1995] 1 E.G.L.R. 146; [1995] 13 E.G. 132; [1994] E.G. 139 (C.S.); [1994] N.P.C. 116; Independent, August 22, 1994; CA (Civ Div)
[1994] 1 A.C. 340; [1993] 3 W.L.R. 126; [1993] 3 All E.R. 65; [1993] 2 F.L.R. 963; (1994) 68 P. & C.R. 412; [1993] E.G. 118 (C.S.); [1993] N.P.C. 97; Times, June 28, 1993; Independent, July 6, 1993; HL
[1991] 1 A.C. 107; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 867; [1990] 1 All E.R. 1111; [1990] 2 F.L.R. 155; (1990) 22 H.L.R. 349; (1990) 60 P. & C.R. 311; (1990) 140 N.L.J. 478; HL
[1986] Ch. 638; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 114; [1986] 2 All E.R. 426; [1987] 1 F.L.R. 87; [1986] Fam. Law 300; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 1996; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 439; (1986) 130 S.J. 408; CA (Civ Div)
[1976] Ch. 179; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 847; [1975] 3 All E.R. 865; (1976) 32 P. & C.R. 70; (1975) 119 S.J. 711; CA (Civ Div)
[1971] A.C. 886; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 255; [1970] 2 All E.R. 780; (1970) 21 P. & C.R. 702; (1970) 114 S.J. 550; HL
[1968] 1 W.L.R. 1555; [1968] 2 All E.R. 1073; [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 289; (1968) 112 S.J. 744; Ch D
Mixnam’s Properties Ltd v Chertsey Urban DC
[1965] A.C. 735; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 1210; [1964] 2 All E.R. 627; (1964) 128 J.P. 405; 62 L.G.R. 528; (1964) 15 P. & C.R. 331; [1964] R.V.R. 632; (1964) 108 S.J. 402; HL
Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines
[1964] A.C. 993; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 150; [1964] 1 All E.R. 300; (1963) 107 S.J. 1037; PC (FMS)
Chalmers v Pardoe
[1963] 1 W.L.R. 677; [1963] 3 All E.R. 552; (1963) 107 S.J. 435; PC (Fiji)
[1953] Ch. 43; [1952] 2 All E.R. 951; [1952] 2 T.L.R. 813; Ch D
Rochefoucauld v Boustead (No.1)
[1897] 1 Ch. 196; CA
Plimmer v Wellington Corp
(1883-84) L.R. 9 App. Cas. 699; PC (NZ)
(1869-70) L.R. 4 H.L. 82; HL (UK-Irl)
(1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129; HL
Caravan Act 1968 s.13(1)
Caravan Act 1968 s.13
Caravan Act 1968 s.1(2)(b)
Caravan Act 1968 s.13(2)
Caravan Act 1968 s.13.1
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52)
Caravan Act 1968 Part 1
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) Part 1
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(2)(b)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.1(3)(b)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13(2)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.13.1
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.7(2)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 and Social Landlords (Permissible Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2006 (Definition of Caravan) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 (SI 2006 2374) art.2(a)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Part 1
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) Sch.5
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(1)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(6)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.1
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.12
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.29
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.29(1)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.3
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(1)(d)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.5(i)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.9
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.62) s.9(1)
Land Charges Act 1925 (c.22)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c.34) s.2
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c.34) s.2(1)
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c.34) s.2(5)
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c.43) s.127
Misrepresentation Act 1967 (c.7) s.2
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5
Caravan Act 1968 s.1(2)
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(2)
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c.42) s.1(2)(b)
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.1(2)(b)
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.5(i)
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) Sch.1
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) s.2(2)
Native Land Trust Ordinance
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.1
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.2
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.7(3)
Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) s.7(3)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.7(2)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.1(1)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.1(3)(b)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c.40) s.3
Public Health Act 1936 (c.49) s.269
Editor’s notebook (March/April)
Contracts for sale of land; Formalities; Oral contracts; Proprietary estoppel.
Conv. 2009, 2, 85-89
Recent developments in housing law (January)
Antisocial behaviour; Antisocial behaviour injunctions; Assured tenancies; Bankrupt’s estate; Breach of injunction; Children; Closure orders; Custodial sentences; Disabled persons; Harassment; Mortgages; Power to promote well-being; Repossession; Secure tenancies; Service charges; Stay of execution; Suitability; Surrender; Suspended possession orders; Tenancy deposit schemes.
Legal Action 2009, Jan, 21-28