Huggins and Others v The State (Trinidad and Tobago)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Sir Henry Brooke |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 30 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 28 of 2007 |
| Date | 09 June 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 30
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Sir Henry Brooke
Privy Council
[Delivered by Sir Henry Brooke]
This is an appeal by the claimant Elaine Knowles ("Elaine"), a retired schoolteacher, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court on 18th September 2006 whereby it allowed an appeal by the defendant George Knowles ("George") from the judgment of Joseph-Olivetti J in the High Court of Antigua and Barbuda dated 20th July 2005.
This litigation is concerned with a house built on a parcel of land at Powell's Estate in the parish of St George in Antigua which Elaine has occupied as her home since 1984. Powell's Estate used to be owned by George's father Oliver Knowles ("Oliver"). Oliver died in 1974, and the land was then registered in the names of George and his mother Violet Knowles ("Violet") as his executors. By her husband's will Violet inherited a life interest in the estate which was to pass to George absolutely following Violet's death.
Elaine met George's brother John Knowles ("John") in 1971. She was then living in Liberta, but before their only child Rhyves was born in 1976 John sold her a house in Clare Hall which his father had given to him while he was still alive. Eight years later John and Elaine married, and it was at this time that they moved with their young son to the house in Powell's Estate. Elaine then obtained tenants for her house in Clare Hall which she still owns.
There are seven houses on Powell's Estate. Violet lived in one of them, and George at one time lived with his family in another. Violet allowed John and Elaine to choose the house they would like to live in. Although the two-bedroomed concrete house they chose had previously been tenanted, it was empty in 1984, and before the couple moved in they had the house painted inside and out and carried out works to make the house more agreeable to live in – retiling and improving the bathroom and replacing the screens in the kitchen.
Four years later they carried out more extensive works. These included the erection of a single bedroom annex (complete with bathroom, washroom and storeroom); erecting a roof to join the annex to the main house; building a driveway; and fencing the property with a new concrete and steelwork fence. In 1989 all the windows had to be replaced following storm damage done by Hurricane Hugo. In 1991 a greenhouse was built, and lattice work was erected to enclose the patio between the annex and the main house.
After Violet died in 1992 they went on living there, and in 1993 Elaine changed the kitchen cupboards at a cost of $10,000. Unhappy tensions then developed within the marriage, and by 1997 John had moved out of the main house to live in the annex. In 2002, the year before the marriage finally collapsed, roofworks were done and the house was repainted inside and out.
John went and lived elsewhere following the divorce in 2003, and tensions then rose between George and Elaine over her continued occupation of the house. The judge found that George cut down some of the trees on the property and poured diesel oil over others, and on 29th September 2003 Elaine's solicitors wrote to him asserting their client's entitlement to the property. George's solicitor replied on 8th October to the effect that she had no legal or equitable rights at all: she was occupying the land as a licensee. On 20th November 2003 the licence was terminated on three months' notice. Elaine then instituted these proceedings to determine her rights in the matter.
In her Statement of Claim she asserted that she had taken up residence in the house with Violet's and George's permission (para 4), and that she and her husband had carried out the building works between 1988 and 1992 with George's permission and on the understanding that George would transfer this land to them both (para 6). She said that it was on the basis of this understanding that they had instructed a surveyor following discussions with George (para 7), and that she had carried out the further works in 2002 with George's consent and/or acquiescence (para 11). In summary, she said that she had spent more than $100,000 in improving the property in the belief or expectation that she would obtain an interest in the land, based on discussions held with Violet, John and George (who, she said, had encouraged her in carrying out the works) (para 12). She claimed a declaration that George held the property in trust for himself and her in such shares as the court might determine.
In his Defence George said that John and Elaine had simply been occupying the property as licensees. In 1994 he had intended to make a gift of the land to his brother John, but John had refused this offer. He had never said anything to give Elaine any encouragement to believe that the land was hers.
In due course the judge was to hold that the case fell to be determined with regard to the principles of proprietary estoppel rather than those of constructive trust because, she said, this was really a case of someone claiming an interest in land on the basis of improvements carried out with the alleged encouragement and acquiescence of the owner.
It was common ground that George and Elaine had not been on speaking terms from a time soon after Elaine started living with John. It was against this background that the sole issue the judge had to decide was whether in all the circumstances George had ever made any form of representation capable of giving rise to a proprietary estoppel in John's and Elaine's favour.
At the trial Rhyves supported his mother's evidence while John gave evidence on his brother's side. The judge preferred the evidence of Elaine and her son: in particular she found certain inconsistencies in what George had told her. She found that because George was living nearby and had had to pass close to the house every day, he must have known that Elaine and John were living in the house with his mother's permission and carrying out extensive renovations there. She said that he could easily have intervened and told them that any improvements they made would enure to his benefit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick Albert Smith Respondent v Lydia Lavorne Smith nee Scatliffe Applicant
...Smith as prepared by Dr. Rubaine 11/04/09 5 Ibid para. 8 6Eric Bobb v Karen Bobb BVIHMT 2008/0039 7 Privy Council Appeal No 28 of 2007, [2008] UKPC 30, Elaine Knowles v George 8 ibid [2012] ECSC J0228-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BVIHMT2006/0028 Between: Patrick Albert Smith Respondent a......
-
(1) Andrew Erlam and Others v (1) Mohammed Lutfur Rahman (A Bankrupt) (First Defendant) (2) Ayesha Khatun Farid (Second Defendant)
...out the work with a beneficial interest save in exceptional circumstances ( Morris v Morris [2008] EWCA Civ 257; Knowles v Knowles [2008] UKPC 30). 107. There is no doctrine of "family interest". In other words, contribution to a family does not entitle the contributing family member to a s......
-
CJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and VW (CSM)
...a s 44 decision in writing in order to qualify as a ‘decision’, applying Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v AM (IS)[2010] UKPC 428 (AAC), a written notice of the decision had to be sent to affected parties. Under Sched 1 to the 1991 Act a supersession decision cancelling an assessme......
-
Smith v The Queen (Jamaica)
... ... by prosecuting counsel in the recent appeal of Huggins, Huggins and Phillip v The State [2008] UKPC 32 , and ... ...
-
Proprietary Estoppel and Responsibility for Omissions
...Can a similar status-based duty to act for34 As in, respectively, Lester vWoodgate [2010] EWCA Civ 199 CA; Elaine Knowles vGeorge Knowles[2008] UKPC 30 PC; Willmott vBarber (1880) 15 Ch D 96.35 All references are to Scottish & Newcastle Plc vLancashire Mortgage Corporation Limited [2007] EW......