Alfred George Creasey and Another v June Sole and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC08C03259 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 24 May 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC08C03259
Case No: HC12C00660
Mr Richard Wallington (instructed by Roach Pittis Solicitors) for the Claimants
The six Defendants appeared in person
Hearing dates: 30 th April, 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, 7 th, 8 th and 9 th May 2013
| Heading | Paragraph number |
| The parties | 1 |
| The land | 4 |
| The father's will in outline | 10 |
| The mother's will in outline | 11 |
| Further facts | 12 |
| The father's will in more detail | 39 |
| The mother's will in more detail | 54 |
| The Manor Farmhouse | 56 |
| Michael's Land | 62 |
| Richard's Land | 82 |
| 83 | |
| Proprietary estoppel | 94 |
| 115 | |
| Payment by Michael for his occupation | 130 |
| The Single Farm Payment | 131 |
| 142 | |
| Other matters | 145 |
| The next steps | 147 |
The parties
This dispute is between six brothers and sisters. They are the children, now adults, of Kenneth (known as Ken) and Constance (known as Connie) Jenkins. Ken and Connie Jenkins were farmers in the Isle of Wight. Ken Jenkins also ran a haulage business. Ken Jenkins, to whom I will hereafter refer as "the father", was born on 8 th February 1921, made a will on 27 th February 1974 and died on 21 st October 1995. Connie Jenkins, to whom I will hereafter refer as "the mother", was born on 5 th May 1922, made various wills, the last of which was dated 5 th November 2004, and died on 15 th January 2005.
The six children are June (born 7 th March 1946), Pamela (born 6 th October 1947), George (born 16 th July 1949), Ronald (born 19 th December 1950), Richard (born 7 th November 1954) and Michael (born 18 th January 1958).
The Claimants are the executors of the mother's will. The mother had been the sole executrix of the father's will so that the Claimants are also now the executors, by representation, of the father's will. The Defendants are the six children to whom I have referred above. The Claimants are represented by Mr Richard Wallington. The six Defendants all appeared in person and each took an active part in the trial.
The land
The principal area of land which is relevant in this case consists of the land and buildings known as East Ashey Manor Farm, Ashey Down, Ashey, Ryde, Isle of Wight. I will refer to this area of land, which is the main area of the farm, as "Ashey". The father and the mother bought this land jointly in 1969 when the land extended to some 210 acres. It is agreed that they held the land for themselves as tenants in common in equity. After 1969 some small areas of Ashey were sold off. At all material times, the land at Ashey included the following principal parts which are relevant to the dispute in this case. First of all, there was the Manor House which is a Grade II listed building. It was surrounded by a garden and nearby was an orchard and a duck pond. Secondly, there was a range of farm buildings and yards. Thirdly, to the north across East Ashey Lane, was a field called the sandpit field. Fourthly, near to the Manor house were fields called Sweet Briar field and the Park. Fifthly, there were fields which for most of the material time were let to a Mr Bevis. In around 1993, Mr Bevis gave up one of the fields called the Butt. Sixthly, to the south of Mr Bevis's fields was a large area of down land known as Ashey Down or the Down. Seventhly, to the east of the Down was a field called the Long Field.
The father and the mother owned other land. They owned land at Landguard, Sandown, which appears to have been in the Jenkins family for some time. At the material times, the father and the mother owned the land at Landguard jointly, holding for themselves as tenants in common in equity. The land at Languard extends to some 77 acres and there is a dispute as to a part of it, namely, a field known as Old Clover, extending to some 12.43 acres. Beside Old Clover, there had been a barn which burnt down a number of times, most recently in October 2005 and it has not since then been rebuilt. There is no longer a dispute as to the ownership of, or rights in, the site of the former barn.
In 1968, the father and the mother bought land at Brading Marshes, extending to some 37 acres, which they owned jointly, holding for themselves as tenants in common in equity. There is no dispute as to the ownership of, or rights in, this land.
At some point, the father alone acquired a further area of land at Brading, known as Wrax Marshes extending to some 26 acres. There is a dispute in relation to this land.
Also at some point, the father and the mother bought land to the north of the sandpit field at Ashey, known as the Duver. They held that land for themselves as tenants in common. The land they acquired included a house and garden but this was sold off in around 1988. The remaining land at the Duver extends to some 14 acres. There is no dispute as to the ownership of, or rights in, the Duver.
On 13 th June 2000, which was after the death of the father, the mother acquired an area of land on the south east side of Ashey Waterworks. There is a pond on this land.
The father's will in outline
The father's last will was made on 27 th February 1974. Later in this judgment, I will set out in full the provisions which fall to be construed. However, in summary at his point, his will relevantly made a gift of his interest in what he described as East Ashey Farm extending to approximately 210 acres (being the land that he and the mother had jointly acquired in 1969) to such child or children of his who could satisfy a particular condition at the date of the death of the survivor of the father and the mother. The father died in 1995 and the mother died in 2005 so that the question arises whether the condition referred to in the father's will was satisfied by a child of his in 2005, some 30 or more years after the will was made. Michael says that he satisfied the condition on the mother's death in 2005 so that he inherited his father's half share in that land at that time. That claim is disputed.
The mother's will in outline
Also on 27 th February 1974, the mother made a will which was in essentially the same terms as the father's will of that date and contained a mirror provison (dealing with her half share in East Ashey Farm) to that contained in the father's will, as described above. In 1993, she made a new will which divided up her share of the land at Ashey so that, in particular, some of her share of that farm land was left to Michael and some was left to Richard. In 2000, she made a further will which again left some of her share of the farm land at Ashey to Michael and some to Richard. By her last will made on 5 th November 2004, she made a gift of her share of the Manor House, and separate gifts of her share of what were called "Michael's Land" and "Richard's Land". The interpretation of these various gifts is in dispute.
Further facts
I will now refer to some further matters of fact which are relevant to this dispute. The evidence in this case covered a lengthy period. I was given detailed evidence as to the work done by the four sons from time to time on the land which was owned by their parents. It is relevant to refer to the involvement of the four sons in the period up to the time when the father made his will in February 1974. Prior to 1972, George carried on his own farming enterprise on part of the land owned by his parents. He did not pay his parents for his use of their land. He did some work in relation to his parents' farming enterprise and he was paid for doing so. From around 1970, and subject to interruptions, Ronald worked for his parents in relation to their farming enterprise. There was a dispute as to whether he ceased working for his parents in February 1974 or at a later point in 1974. It is not necessary to resolve that dispute. Richard worked for his parents in relation to their farming enterprise from 1971 and, subject to interruptions, he continued working for them until 1979. Michael started working for his parents in relation to their farming enterprise in 1974, around the time when Ronald stopped working for them. Michael was paid for this work. Michael continued working in this way until 1983 when, following a disagreement with his parents, he left the farm. During this period, Michael also kept his own animals on his parents' land.
It t is important to consider more thoroughly what happened in and after 1983 in relation to Michael. Michael contends that his agricultural work after 1983 is relevant in more than one way. First, he contends that this work qualifies him to inherit under a particular clause of the father's will. Secondly, he says that he has acquired a tenancy of an extensive area of the land and that such tenancy has security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Thirdly, he says that his belief as to what he would inherit at some point, together with a statement made to him in 1992, together with his agricultural work results in him having the benefit of a proprietary estoppel which entitles him to inherit a substantial area of agricultural land. Finally, he relies upon certain of the provisions of the Trusts of Land and the Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 coupled with the fact that he has been, and is, in occupation of certain land so as to produce the result that he ought to be allowed to continue in occupation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John David Sheffield v John Julian Lionel George Sheffield and Others (1st Defendants) John Julian Lionel George Sheffield (2nd Defendant) John Julian Lionel George Sheffield and Others (3rd Defendants)
...to be a sub-trustee has a right of occupation appears to be controversial. There is at least one unreported decision — Creasey and Holmes v. Sole and others [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch) (Morgan J) — in which it has been held that such a sub-trustee does not have such a right. However this point is......
-
Bilal Ali (as Personal Representative of Farzand Ali (Deceased)) v Laith Khatib (as Personal Representative of Fateh Bibi (Deceased))
...the analysis of the application of the 1996 Act in relation to interests under a will in undivided shares in land in Creasey v Sole [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch) 27 Mr Darton QC, on behalf of Dr Ali, accepted that the matter had not proceeded on this basis before the judge and that the point was n......
-
Evan John Tegwyn Davies and Another v Elizabeth Eirian Davies
...on the representations she gave up the chance to be better remunerated elsewhere. They rely on a passage in the judgment of Morgan J in Creasey v Sole [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch) at [111]: "In order to determine whether [the claimant] acted to his detriment in reliance on some promise or assuranc......