Bindra v Chopra
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1715 (Ch) |
| Date | 2008 |
| Year | 2008 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Deed – Trust deed – Construction – Rectification – Beneficial interest in proceeds of sales – Dispute arising between testator’s wife and sister-in-law – Whether wife entitled to beneficial interest in proceeds of sale – Whether wife entitled to inquiry and account in relation to proceeds of sale.
On 20 September 2004, the testator died. The claimant was the testator’s sister and the joint legal owner of two properties, RL and MP. The defendant was the testator’s wife and the sole beneficiary of his will. Following the testator’s death, the claimant sought possession of RL, and relied on a trust deed in order to claim mesne profits from the defendant, as a trespasser at RL, following the testator’s death and a letter from the claimant terminating the defendant’s licence to remain. The trust deed provided, inter alia, that upon the death of the testator or the claimant the survivor would be entitled to the whole proceeds of sale absolutely. On 12 February 2008, the property was sold with vacant possession and £341,846.22, representing the net proceeds of sale, was transferred into an interest bearing account pending the outcome of the proceedings. The defendant claimed in her personal capacity, or as the sole executrix of the estate, that she had a beneficial interest in the net proceeds of sale, and, by counterclaim, sought an inquiry and an account in respect of the net proceeds of the sale of MP. The defendant argued that MP was sold in 2001, and the net proceeds of sale, namely £87,015.82, had been misappropriated by the claimant.
The defendant claimed, on the true interpretation of the trust deed, or alternatively by virtue of the estate’s right to rectification of the deed, the estate was entitled to a 75% beneficial interest in the proceeds of sale. In the further alternative, the defendant argued that as a result of her own direct and indirect contributions while living at RL by virtue of a constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, or s 37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, she was entitled to a corresponding interest in the net proceeds of sale. On the counterclaim, the claimant contended that it had been agreed that she would have a 75% share of the proceeds of MP, and provided what she argued was contemporaneous evidence signed by the testator to that effect.
Held – (1) The approach of the courts was to try to give effect to each and every part of an agreement or instrument freely negotiated and entered into between parties rather than to reject outright part of it as having no legal
effect. On the true construction of the trust deed, and on the facts, it could not be said to be legally invalid. The claimant was entitled to the entire proceeds of sale of RL. Re Dugdale, Dugdale v Dugdale [1886–90] All ER Rep Ext 1505 considered; Re Danish Bacon Co Ltd staff pension fund, Christensen v Arnett [1971] 1 All ER 486 considered; Baird v Baird [1990] 2 All ER 300 considered.
(2) On the evidence, the defendant had failed to make out her case on her alternative grounds for seeking a beneficial interest in RL. It followed that her occupation of RL, after the termination of her licence, was as a trespasser, for which the claimant was entitled to recover damages. Those damages were, in the absence of any special features, to be calculated on the basis of the ordinary letting value of the property.
(3) On the evidence, the testator’s signature relied on by the claimant in relation to MP was not genuine. Further, the claimant had not rebutted the presumption that, as joint legal owners, she and the testator had been equally entitled to the beneficial interest. Accordingly, an inquiry and account had to be conducted in relation to the proceeds of sale of MP.
Cases referred to in judgmentBaird v Baird [1990] 2 All ER 300, [1990] 2 AC 548, [1990] 2 WLR 1412, PC.
Bates (Thomas) & Son Ltd v Wyndham’s (Lingerie) Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 1077, [1981] 1 WLR 505, CA.
Brown (decd), Re, District Bank Ltd v Brown [1953] 2 All ER 1342, [1954] Ch 39, [1953] 3 WLR 877.
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd[2008] EWCA Civ 183, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 387.
Danish Bacon Co Ltd staff pension fund, Re, Christensen v Arnett [1971] 1 All ER 486, [1971] 1 WLR 248.
Dugdale, Re, Dugdale v Dugdale (1888) 38 Ch D 176, [1886–90] All ER Rep Ext 1505.
Langston v Langston (1834) 2 Cl & Fin 194, [1824–34] All ER Rep 598, HL.
Muschamp v Bluet (1617) 123 ER 1253.
Priestley v Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust[2002] EWCA Civ 183, [2002] All ER (D) 100 (Feb).
Richerson, Re, Scales v Heyhoe [1892] 1 Ch 379.
Stack v Dowden[2007] UKHL 17, [2007] 2 FCR 280, [2007] 2 All ER 929, [2007] 2 AC 432, [2007] 1 FLR 1858.
White, Re (1987) 38 DLR (4th) 631, Ont HC.
ApplicationThe claimant, Angela Bindra, sought possession of a property which she was a joint legal owner of and claimed mesne profits from the defendant, Jennifer Chopra, as a trespasser, bringing proceedings in Watford County Court in March 2005. Deputy District Judge Apple transferred proceedings to the Chancery Division on 3 May 2005. The facts are set out in the judgment.
Mark Warwick (instructed by Rochman Landau) for the claimant.
Josephine Hayes (instructed by Hugh Cartwright & Amin) for the defendant.
ETHERTON J. Introduction[1] These proceedings began in March 2005 as possession proceedings in the Watford County Court in respect of 80 Ridge Lane, Watford (Ridge Lane). They were transferred to the Chancery Division by order of Deputy District Judge Apple dated 3 May 2005. The claim for possession has been overtaken by events. Ridge Lane was sold with vacant possession on 12 February 2008 for £480,000.00. The net proceeds of sale of £341,846.22 have been transferred to an interest bearing account pending the outcome of these proceedings.
[2] The dispute turns on whether the defendant, Jennifer Margaret Chopra (Jennifer), in her personal capacity or as the sole executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Akash Kumar Chopra (Akash), had any beneficial interest in Ridge Lane prior to its sale, and is now entitled to any share in the net proceeds of its sale; and also, by a counterclaim, whether Akash’s estate (the estate) has any right to an inquiry and account in respect of the net proceeds of sale of another property, 43 Melrose Place, Watford (Melrose Place).
[3] The claimant, Angela Bindra (Angela) was the sister of Akash. She and Akash were the joint legal owners of Ridge Lane until Akash’s death on 20 September 2004.
[4] Akash lived at Ridge Lane as his home, and Jennifer moved in with him in 1995. Jennifer married Akash on 8 September 2001. Jennifer is, in the events which have happened, the sole beneficiary under Akash’s will dated 26 July 2004 (the will). Jennifer was granted probate of Akash’s will on 28 August 2007. The estate was sworn at nil value.
[5] Ridge Lane was transferred to Akash and Angela on 19 August 1988, and they were duly registered as proprietors on 16 September 1988. The transfer (the Ridge Lane transfer) specified that Ridge Lane was transferred to them as tenants in common upon the trusts of a deed of the same date. Angela claims that, on the terms of that trust deed (the Ridge Lane trust deed), she became solely beneficially entitled to Ridge Lane on Akash’s death.
[6] Angela claims mesne profits from Jennifer as a trespasser at Ridge Lane following a letter from Angela’s solicitors terminating Jennifer’s licence to remain there after Akash’s death.
[7] Jennifer claims that, on the true interpretation of the Ridge Lane trust deed, or, alternatively by virtue of the estate’s right to rectification of the trust deed, the estate was entitled to a 75% beneficial interest in Ridge Lane and is now entitled to 75% of the net proceeds of its sale. Alternatively, Jennifer claims that, having regard to her own direct and indirect financial contributions while living at Ridge Lane with Akash, she was entitled in her own right to a beneficial interest in Ridge Lane by virtue of a constructive
trust, or proprietary estoppel, or under s 37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 (MPPA), and is now entitled to a corresponding interest in the net proceeds of its sale.
[8] Angela claims that, if Jennifer was entitled to occupy Ridge Lane after Akash’s death by virtue of a beneficial interest in that property in Jennifer’s own right or in right of the estate, Jennifer is nevertheless liable to pay Angela an amount in respect of her occupation.
[9] Melrose Place was transferred to Akash and Angela on 30 April 1991, and they were registered as proprietors on 14 May 1991. Melrose Place was sold on 29 October 2001. The net proceeds of sale of £87,015.82, were remitted to their joint account at Abbey National plc (Abbey National). Jennifer claims that Angela misappropriated the net proceeds of sale, and failed to account to Akash for his proper share of them. She counterclaims for an inquiry and account as to the estate’s share of the proceeds of sale, and an order for payment of what should be found due to the estate. Angela claims that the net proceeds of sale were used to meet outstanding bills for which Akash was wholly or jointly liable, and to reimburse Angela for debts that she had settled on Akash’s behalf. She also claims that Melrose Place and its net proceeds of sale were held on trust for herself as to 75%, and for Akash as to 25%. Jennifer claims that Angela and Akash were equal beneficial owners.
Evidence[10] Witness statements were made, on behalf of Angela, by Angela herself; John Letts, the solicitor who acted on the purchase of Ridge Lane and Melrose Place; Sean Tickell, the solicitor who acted on the sale of Melrose Place; Lee Risby, who was formerly employed by Akash and Angela; Ellis Goldberg, a friend and business acquaintance of Akash and Angela; Heyma Vij, Akash’s niece; and Shakuntla Chopra, the mother of Akash and Angela.
[11] Oral evidence was given by all of them, other than Akash’s mother, who was not required to attend for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bindra v Chopra
...COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Mr Justice Etherton [2008] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Rimer Case No: 2008/1968 Between: Jennifer Margaret Chopra Appellant and Angel......
-
Nord Naphtha Ltd v New Stream Trading AG
...surplusage, but to give effect to the agreement (as per Jani-King (GB) Ltd v Pula Enterprises Ltd [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 451 at [26] and Bindra v Chopra [2008] EWHC 1715 (Ch) at [28]). The Judge was not in any sense adopting a ‘back to front’ approach by starting with common sense, noting ......