Frawley v Neill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Aldous and Lord Justice Ward
Equity - beneficial rights - modern approach to laches
The modern approach to the equitable doctrine of laches, whereby the court would not uphold beneficial rights whose assertion or enforcement had been unreasonably delayed by their claimant, was not to inquire into all the circumstances to see whether they fitted within the principles established in previous cases, but rather to ask whether, broadly considered, the claimant's actions were such as to render it unconscionable for him to be permitted to assert his beneficial rights.
The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Anne Marie Brough Neill, against the decision of Judge Raymond Jack, QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge on October 20, 1997, declaring that the plaintiff, Sheagan Dermot Frawley, was entitled to all the net proceeds of sale of a house at 5 Rowley Close, Fleckney, Leicestershire, which had previously been jointly owned by both parties.
The house was jointly purchased by the parties in 1974 for £9,050. Of the deposit of £3,250, the plaintiff provided two thirds and the defendant one third. A mortgage from the Halifax Building Society provided the balance. The property was conveyed into their joint names.
In 1975 the defendant, who subsequently ceased to reside there, orally agreed to sell her interest in the house to the plaintiff for £1,400. Although that was disputed, the judge found that there was such an agreement and that the plaintiff paid the agreed sum to the defendant.
The defendant subsequently moved to Canada and arrangements for the conveyance of the property into the plaintiff's sole name were never completed. The plaintiff himself later moved out of the property and eventually stopped paying the mortgage.
In 1988 the building society took possession and sold the property, paying the surplus proceeds of £84,000 into an account pending resolution of the dispute over beneficial ownership.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to the whole proceeds of sale because of delay or laches, and that the judge erred in granting a declaration in the plaintiff's favour when the plaintiff had neither applied for nor been granted an order for specific performance of the 1975 agreement.
Mr Charles Taylor for the defendant; Mr Timothy Harry for the plaintiff.
LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS said that on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell Evans and Others v David Edward Rees Lloyd and Another
...are most material.'" In Patel v Shah [2005] EWCA Civ 157 the Court of Appeal reiterated the approach that it had previously adopted in Frawley v Neill [2000] C.P. Rep 20 is as follows: "The inquiry should require a broad approach, directed to ascertaining whether it would in all the circums......
-
Virgin Gorda Yacht Harbour v Little Dix Bay Hotel Company
...and Salmon in United Scientific Holdings v. Burnley Council (1977), [1978] A.C. 904 41 Goodwin v Temple (supra); Frawley v. Neill [2000] C.P. Rep. 20 42 Brown v Heffer 116 CLR 344; Dougan v Ley [1946] 71 C.L.R. 142 43 [2009] EXHC 2694 44 [2001] 2 AC 710 45 [2014] UKSC 16 46 (1973) 129 CLR ......
-
Virgin Gorda Yacht Harbour v Little Dix Bay Hotel Company
...and Salmon in United Scientific Holdings v. Burnley Council (1977), [1978] A.C. 904 41 Goodwin v Temple (supra); Frawley v. Neill [2000] C.P. Rep. 20 42 Brown v Heffer 116 CLR 344; Dougan v Ley [1946] 71 C.L.R. 142 43 [2009] EXHC 2694 44 [2001] 2 AC 710 45 [2014] UKSC 16 46 (1973) 129 CLR ......
-
Phillip Bradley Hinds Plantiff v (1) Clive Montrivelle Hinds, Administrator of the Estate of Esther Rosalind Hinds (2) Clive Montrivelle Hinds (3) John Leverette Hinds III (4) Thomas Anthony Hinds (5) Sharon Hinds (6) Norahs Kcotsob Ltd Defendants
...therefore be subject to uncertainty; but that, I think, is inherent in the nature of the inquiry.’ 16.4More recently, in Frawley v Neill [2000] CP Rep 20 (CA) Aldous LJ in the English Court of Appeal described the principle in rather broader terms: see at pp. 7–8: ‘In my view the more moder......