Anthony John Snell v Mrs. Margaret Beadle (nee Silcock)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLord Hope of Craighead,Lord Cooke of Thorndon,Lord Hutton
Judgment Date29 January 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] UKPC 5
Date29 January 2001
CourtPrivy Council
Docket NumberAppeal No. 19 of 1999

[2001] UKPC 5

Privy Council

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Cooke of Thorndon

Lord Hutton

Lord Millett

Sir Ivor Richardson

Appeal No. 19 of 1999
Anthony John Snell
Appellant
and
Mrs. Margaret Beadle (nee Silcock)
Respondent

[Majority judgment delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]

1

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Jersey (Collins P., Southwell and Clarke JJ.A.) dated 18th January 1999 allowing an appeal by the respondent, Margaret Anne Beadle, against an order of the Royal Court of Jersey (Samedi Division) (Deputy Bailiff Hamon and Jurats Gruchy and Tibbo) of 4th February 1998. The action had been brought by the appellant, Anthony John Snell, to enforce a written agreement whereby, in consideration of the sum of £100 and the payment of her legal costs, Mrs. Beadle gave her irrevocable permission to Mr. Snell to exercise a vehicular right of access over a strip of land owned by her for the purpose of driving vehicles to and from his property.

The facts

2

There is no longer any dispute as to the facts which are set out in the judgment of the Royal Court. Mr. Snell was the owner of two properties called "Broadlands" and "Abalone" which lay on either side of the strip of land which belonged to Mrs. Beadle. Taken together the properties lay between a public road in St. Clement called Grève d'Azette and a private road which ran along the margin of the sea shore. The public road, the strip of land and the private road ran parallel to each other up to a point where the private road turned at right angles across the line of the strip of land to join the public road. "Broadlands" lay between the public road and the strip of land. "Abalone" lay between the strip of land and the private road. The strip of land was narrow and undeveloped. The only use to which it had been put was as a footpath. Vehicular access from the public road to "Abalone", which had been used for many years as a guest house, was obtained by means of the private road. But there was no vehicular access at the relevant time to "Broadlands". The Island Planning and Development Committee had refused permission for the removal of part of its boundary wall to enable an access to be formed from the public road onto that property. There was a right of pedestrian access to it along the strip of land which separated it from "Abalone" so that people walking to and from "Broadlands" could use it as a footpath. But that right did not enable vehicles to be driven from one side of the strip to the other to obtain access to that property from the public road.

3

Mr. Snell had inherited the two properties from his father, who had run "Abalone" for many years as a guest house. The business did not prosper, and each property was burdened with a substantial mortgage. They were both in a dilapidated state when Mr. Snell inherited them, and the term of the mortgage on "Broadlands" had expired. Mr. Snell decided to try to find a way out of his financial difficulties by developing the properties. But there was no prospect of a successful development on "Broadlands" unless a means of access could be provided to that property from the public road for vehicles. It was a condition of the permit which was obtained for its development on 8th July 1993 from the Planning Department that four parking spaces were to be provided there and that these spaces were to be kept available for parking and turning at all times. The Island Planning and Development Committee had refused permission to obtain direct access to "Broadlands" from the public road. So the only way that access could be achieved was by obtaining Mrs. Beadle's agreement for a right of way across her strip of land which would allow vehicles to pass from "Abalone" to "Broadlands". A financial backer had been found to provide Mr. Snell with the financial support which he needed to satisfy the demands of the mortgagor and to undertake the development. But he was not willing to advance any money to Mr. Snell until the matter of access had been resolved.

4

It was in the face of these difficulties that Mr. Snell's solicitors, Pickersgill & Le Cornu, wrote to Mrs. Beadle on 26th January 1994 at her home address in St. Brelade asking whether she would be prepared to enter into an agreement with Mr. Snell and to pass a contract before the Royal Court extending the right of access on foot to enable cars to pass from "Abalone" to "Broadlands" over her footpath. Mrs. Beadle said that she did not receive this letter, but Mr. Snell's business consultant and project manger, Mr. Harry Cole, had already decided to take matters into his own hands. He telephoned Mrs. Beadle, told her that he represented Mr. Snell and asked her to meet him on the property without delay. She readily agreed.

5

On 1st February 1994 Mrs. Beadle went to "Abalone" where she met Mr. Cole and Mr. Snell at 3.00 p.m. as arranged. She viewed the strip of land and the whole situation was explained to her. The meeting which lasted for half an hour was pleasant and cordial, and Mrs. Beadle made it clear that she was willing to be helpful. She was anxious to ensure that there would be no parking on the strip of land, but otherwise she raised no objection to the proposal in principle. She asked Mr. Cole what he considered to be a proper consideration for the grant of a right of vehicular access. He said that he would suggest £50 to £100, but that she was free to take advice if she wanted to. She said that a better figure would be £100, but that she would have to speak to her lawyers as she always did. She said that she would come back to Mr. Cole the next day, and she asked for and was given his card and telephone number. She contacted him the next morning at about 10.30 a.m. by telephone and said "Mr. Cole, I am agreeing to what your client requires - £100 and my legal fees."

6

A written agreement was then prepared, and Mrs. Beadle went to Mr. Cole's office some time after mid-day on 2nd February 1994. She read the document through when it was ready and said "Mr. Cole, this appears to be what is agreed". She asked for a pen and signed the document, and he witnessed it. At that time she was happy with the agreement which she had entered into. She assumed that the document which she had signed would be sent to the lawyers to finalise by way of contract. Mr. Snell's solicitors prepared the draft contract, and on 3rd February 1994 they sent it to Bois & Bois, who were Mrs. Beadle's solicitors, requesting them to confirm that it was satisfactory. Had matters proceeded as everyone had expected up to this stage, the contract would have been engrossed and either Mrs. Beadle or her solicitor would have been present at the Samedi Court on the Friday of that week in order to pass the contract. The Royal Court had no doubt that she would then have received £100 and her legal fees, and Mr. Snell would have been able to satisfy his mortgage creditor and proceed with the development.

7

Mrs. Beadle's solicitors were not satisfied with the draft agreement. They took the view that Mr. Cole had purported to bind Mrs. Beadle to give her consent for a derisory consideration and maintained that it had been put before her for signature without any opportunity for legal advice or reflection. Having taken the advice of a professional valuer, they informed Mr. Snell's solicitors that Mrs. Beadle was prepared to sell the freehold of the whole of the strip of land for £15,000. The result of this unexpected turn of events was that Mr. Snell was unable to go ahead with the planned development. His financial supporter withdrew, and he had to protect himself by entering on a remise de biens. He then instituted proceedings before the Royal Court in which he sought relief by way of specific performance and damages for breach of contract. He received and rejected an offer from Mrs. Beadle's solicitors to sell the fonds of the strip of land to him provided he abandoned his claim of damages. "Broadlands" has now passed into the ownership of a third party, to whom the Island Planning and Development Committee have given permission to form a direct access from that property on to the public road.

8

One can only regret the fact that this change from the Committee's previous policy, which was to preserve the integrity of the boundary wall along the entire length of the property, has come too late for Mr. Snell and Mrs. Beadle. As it is, what began as an amicable transaction between neighbours, into which Mrs. Beadle entered with a genuine and wholly commendable desire to assist Mr. Snell to overcome his urgent financial difficulties, has given rise to an expensive and prolonged dispute between them which it seems only litigation can now resolve. Mr. Snell has withdrawn his claim for relief by way of specific performance as this is not an available remedy under the law of Jersey. He wishes however to maintain his claim for damages.

9

The argument which was originally taken on Mrs. Beadle's behalf that she was entitled to repudiate the agreement as she was subjected to undue pressure when she signed the form of agreement and because the value of the right of vehicular access had been falsely represented to her has also been departed from in view of the findings of fact that were made by the Royal Court. Mrs. Beadle said in her evidence that she was happy with the agreement when she signed it, and the criticisms which were made in the pleadings of Mr. Snell and Mr. Cole were held not to have been made out. In the result the only issue which brought the action before the Court of Appeal, and the only issue which is now before their Lordships' Board, is that which was introduced into the case by an amendment for which leave was given by a consent order in the Royal Court. The amendment was in these terms:-

"19. That further or in the alternative the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Anthony Stephen Tortolano V. Ogilvie Construction Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 10 October 2012
  • Anthony Richardson v The Attorney General
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 26 September 2018
    ...starting from Harrikissoon v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265to Jaroo v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2001] UKPC 5 and Attorney General of Trindad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2005] UKPC 15 which guide the approach which should be followed. These cases consistent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Royal Court Of Jersey Reinforces Guidance On Contractual Interpretation And Formation
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 29 October 2020
    ...067, [56] to [57]. 8 Ibid., [154]. 9 Ibid., [203], citing Grove and Briscoe v Briscoe [2005] JLR 348, [15] to [17]. 10 Snell v Beadle [2001] 2 AC 304 (PC), 11 Selby v Romerill [1996 JLR 210], 218 to 219. 12 Sir Bob Murray CBE v Camerons Limited [2020] JRC 179, [154], citing Minister of Trea......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT