Julie Mate v Shirley Claire Mate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Andrew Sutcliffe |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Claim No. P T-2021-LDS-000076 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Claim No. P T-2021-LDS-000076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN LEEDS
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST
Mr Wilson Horne and Mr Timothy Sherwin (instructed by Charles Russell Speechly LLP) for the Claimant
Ms Caroline Shea KC and Mr Michael Ranson (instructed by Chadwick Lawrence LLP) for the Second and Third Defendants
The First Defendant appeared only as a witness and was not represented at trial
Hearing dates: 6–9, 12–14 September 2022 and 11 November 2022 (further written submissions dated 31 October 2022 and 2 December 2022)
APPROVED JUDGMENT
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version is handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe KC:
Contents
| Introduction | 4 |
| The witnesses | 6 |
| Julie's witnesses | 7 |
| Andrew and Robert's witnesses | 10 |
| The expert evidence | 13 |
| The Law — Proprietary Estoppel | 13 |
| The Law — Unjust Enrichment | 18 |
| The facts | 22 |
| The period prior to Donald's death | 22 |
| Donald's will | 23 |
| The farm after Donald's death | 24 |
| Shirley's alleged promises | 25 |
| Family funeral in March 2004 | 26 |
| Julie's letter of 25 March 2004 | 28 |
| Julie's job with Rural Solutions — late 2007 | 28 |
| The recommendation of Duncan Hartley | 29 |
| Julie's letter to her sisters | 30 |
| Julie's contact with Andrew on 17 and 20 June 2008 | 33 |
| The site meeting with Mr Hartley on 23 June 2008 | 33 |
| Payment for Mr Hartley's work | 35 |
| Payment for Julie's work | 35 |
| Events after the site meeting | 36 |
| The 2010 SHLAA | 40 |
| Response to the 2012 Core Strategy | 40 |
| Housebuilders | 40 |
| The ‘angry call’ | 41 |
| Events following the ‘angry call’ | 42 |
| Approach by Persimmon in 2014 | 43 |
| Julie's 2014 letter to Shirley | 44 |
| Progress towards the draft Local Plan and signature of the Persimmon option agreement | 46 |
| The draft Local Plan | 48 |
| Julie's December 2015 letter to Andrew, copied to the rest of the family | 48 |
| Julie and Tom's post-Christmas visit to Shirley | 50 |
| Julie's further instructions to Mr Hartley | 51 |
| Julie's January 2016 letter to Andrew | 51 |
| Persimmon's representations to the Council | 54 |
| Mr Oates' attendances on the family including Julie and Tom's meeting with Mr Oates on 9 February 2016 | 54 |
| Confirmation of Netherton Moor sites in the draft Local Plan | 62 |
| Execution of the declaration of trust | 62 |
| Further planning steps | 63 |
| Julie's letter of claim and subsequent events | 63 |
| Adoption of the Local Plan and Persimmon's planning application | 65 |
| Julie's contact with Shirley in March and April 2020 | 66 |
| Issue of claim and Shirley's query regarding declaration of trust | 68 |
| Julie's proprietary estoppel claim: has an equity arisen? | 69 |
| Julie's claim in unjust enrichment | 74 |
| (1) Have Shirley, Andrew and Robert been enriched? | 74 |
| (2) Was the enrichment at Julie's expense? | 75 |
| (3) Was the enrichment unjust? | 76 |
| (4) What is the value of the services Julie provided? | 78 |
| Conclusion | 90 |
Introduction
The dispute in this case concerns members of a farming family and arises as a result of what was previously farmland being sold for a greatly uplifted value to a residential housing developer. It requires consideration of the doctrines of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment.
The claimant Julie Mate is one of five children of the first defendant Shirley Mate and her late husband Donald Mate. She has two brothers, Andrew Mate and Robert Mate who are the second and third defendants, and two sisters, Gillian Robson and Virginia Boothroyd. I refer to the various members of the family by their given names without meaning any disrespect to them.
Shirley was born in 1933 and married Donald in 1954. Gillian was born in 1955, Robert in 1957, Julie in 1960, Andrew in 1962 and Virginia in 1966. Donald died in 1992. The farm was a dairy farm in Netherton which is a village not far from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. Donald and Shirley were partners in a milk bottling and milk retail business. Robert and Andrew became partners in the business shortly before Donald died.
Julie says that from late 2007 at the latest, encouraged by Shirley, she started looking into the potential development of some 40 acres of a part of the farm known as Netherton Moor (the Netherton Moor land). She identified a suitable planning consultant, Duncan Hartley, and arranged to bring him to a meeting with Shirley, Robert and Andrew at the farm on 23 June 2008. Following that meeting, Shirley, Robert and Andrew agreed that Julie should engage the services of Mr Hartley to assist her in achieving the removal of the Netherton Moor land from the Green Belt with a view to such land being allocated for housing on the Council's Local Plan.
Julie says that she worked on this project with Mr Hartley at various times between 2008 and late 2015 in reliance on promises made to her by Shirley that if she succeeded in removing the Netherton Moor land from the Green Belt and securing its allocation for housing, the proceeds of sale of that land resulting from its sale to a developer would be shared equally between Shirley and her five children.
In late 2011 the local planning authority, Kirklees Metropolitan District Council (the Council), published its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). In late 2012 the Council published its Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy. Both documents included two sites forming part of the Netherton Moor land as suitable, achievable and available and potentially suitable to be included in the Local Plan.
At the start of 2013, Julie telephoned Andrew to update him on the work she and Mr Hartley had done. She wanted to arrange a meeting with him so they could consider potential housebuilders for the Netherton Moor land. According to both of them, this turned into an angry call. Julie says that Andrew responded to her suggestion by saying “what's it got to do with you”. Andrew agrees he said that but also maintains that he told Julie on that call to stop doing any work on the project. That is a dispute of fact I need to resolve.
In late 2015, the Council published its draft Local Plan which showed that part of the Netherton Moor land had been released from the Green Belt. Julie sent a letter to Andrew, copied to the rest of the family, informing them of this significant news. She then discovered shortly afterwards that, without informing her, a year or so earlier Shirley, Robert and Andrew had entered into an agreement with the housing developer Persimmon Homes Limited (Persimmon). Although she was not given details of the terms of that agreement at the time, she subsequently became aware that this agreement gave Persimmon the option to purchase part of the Netherton Moor land for £9 million.
In late 2016, the Netherton Moor sites were confirmed in the final draft version of the Local Plan. After public consultation and examination by the Planning Inspectorate, the Local Plan was formally adopted by the Council in February 2019. Persimmon submitted a planning application to the Council in October 2019. In April 2021, the Council gave Persimmon permission to develop 250 houses on the Netherton Moor land. Persimmon exercised its option, resulting in the sale by Shirley, Robert and Andrew of a first parcel of land on 1 October 2021 for £4.5 million and a second parcel of land for a further £4.5 million which was due on 1 October 2022.
Julie's case is that from the late 1990s onwards Shirley made promises to her that, if farmland was sold, the proceeds of sale would be shared equally between Shirley and her five children. She says she relied on those promises by working to remove the Green Belt restriction from the Netherton Moor land and secure its allocation for residential housing development. She further says that Andrew and Robert knew of Shirley's promises and that they, together with Shirley, were aware of the steps she was taking in reliance on those promises. Accordingly, she claims that Shirley, Andrew and Robert are estopped from denying that on the sale of the farmland she and her sisters would receive with them an equal share of the proceeds of sale. This is Julie's proprietary estoppel claim.
Alternatively Julie claims that Shirley, Robert and Andrew knew that she would not have been prepared to spend time and money on the work that she did in removing the Green Belt restriction from the Netherton Moor land and securing its allocation for residential housing development without recompense and that, unless she is rewarded for her work, they will have been unjustly enriched. She claims as compensation a share in the proceeds of sale of the Netherton Moor land or such other compensation as the court thinks fit. This is Julie's alternative unjust enrichment claim.
Julie's claim was issued in May 2020. Until about May 2022 Shirley denied Julie's claim. At about that time she ceased to instruct solicitors who had represented her since the claim was issued and not long afterwards obtained permission to amend her defence by striking through her original defence in its entirety and signing a statement of truth underneath the words (in manuscript) “I admit to Julie's claim”. Julie relied on a witness statement signed by Shirley in May 2022 and called her to give evidence on the third day of the trial. Although still a defendant, Shirley has not been represented in these proceedings.
Andrew and Robert deny Julie's claim and in particular say they were not aware of any promises...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Julie Mate v Shirley Claire Mate
...1 Further to my judgment in the trial of this matter (“ the Main Judgment”), handed down on 10 February 2023 (neutral citation number [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch)), I must now deal with the issue of 2 In the Main Judgment I dismissed the Claimant ( Julie)'s proprietary estoppel claim and allowed h......
-
Costs Awarded To The Successful Claimant In A Property Dispute (Mate v Mate And Others)
...background? This is the judgment of a consequentials hearing by the Judge who determined the main claim at a trial on 10 February 2023 [2023] EWHC 238 (Ch). The consequentials hearing was required in order to determine a number of difficult costs arguments arising out of the nature of the J......