Proprietary estoppel

RFQ v MJQ and FBQ [2008] EWHC 1874 (Fam); SJ 23 September

Following discussions between two brothers and their father, the claimant alleged it was agreed that if he and his wife looked after the renovation of a house in Wimbledon owned by the father ‘financially and by supervising and putting in their own labour’, then it would be theirs. The father denied there was any agreement other than that the son and his wife could occupy the property as long as they paid for the upkeep and he argued that the property belonged to him. Although the claimant could have done rather more to establish the figures as appropriate, not least by producing bank statements to show cash withdrawals, for instance, because on occasions large sums of cash were necessary to pay workmen. The failure to produce documentation of this kind and other kinds to substantiate the expenditure claimed did not suggest that the claim was false. It was more likely to be a further example of the claimant’s disorganisation and inertia (he was described as ‘a solicitor with an alcohol problem’). There were a number of reasons why his alleged expenditure of around £200,000 seemed not at all unlikely. Taking all the relevant circumstances together, equity could only be satisfied if the house became the claimant’s property.