Lisa Mary Pickering (in her personal capacity and as executrix of the estate of Nora Louise Hughes, deceased) v Charles Arthur Hughes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Andrew Lenon |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1672 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No: PT-2019-LDS-000020 |
| Date | 22 April 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 1672 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN LEEDS
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Andrew Lenon Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
Claim No: PT-2019-LDS-000020
Richard Wormald QC and Amanda Hadkiss (instructed by Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Limited) for the Claimant
Brie Stevens-Hoare QC and Charlotte John (instructed by Ansons Solicitors Limited) for the Defendants
Approved Judgment
Hearing dates 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22 April 2021
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 as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Contents
| Introduction | 3 |
| The Witnesses | 4 |
| The Background | 6 |
| The Claims and Counterclaims | 18 |
| Wood House and the 25 acres | 18 |
| Legal principles | 19 |
| The alleged 1984 Agreement | 22 |
| Detriment | 36 |
| Lisa's claim for occupation charges in respect of Wood House | 39 |
| Kilnhurst | 40 |
| Pond Field House | 41 |
| The Chattels | 43 |
| Conclusions | 45 |
Introduction
This judgment follows the trial of various claims between members of the Hughes family relating to a portfolio of properties and certain chattels. The members of the family are referred to in the judgment by their given names, as they have been throughout the proceedings.
The properties in question were jointly acquired by the late Nora Hughes (“Nora”) who died in 2017, and her husband Charles Hughes (“Charles”) (the first defendant). Nora and Charles had three children, Lisa (the claimant) John (the second defendant) and David (who was a witness but is not a party to the proceedings). John is married to Lorraine (the third defendant), and James and Jodie (the fourth and fifth defendants) are their children.
For many years, the family was content to enter into informal arrangements in relation to the properties but in 2015 there was a dispute between members of the family which led to it splitting into two “camps”. The two camps comprise, on the one hand, Lisa, Nora and David, and, on the other, John and his immediate family and Charles.
The main issue to be determined at the trial was as to the beneficial ownership of a property known as Edlington Wood House, Edlington, near Doncaster and an adjoining Annex (“Wood House”) and a parcel of 25 acres of land surrounding it (“the 25 acres”). John and Lorraine claim that Wood House and the 25 acres are held on constructive trust for them, alternatively that Wood House and the 25 acres are subject to a proprietary estoppel entitling them to the whole beneficial interest. Charles supports the claim but the claim is denied by Lisa on behalf of Nora's estate. The other issues to be determined arise out of claims by Lisa for orders for sale and occupation rent and claims by Charles for the return of certain chattels which he alleges belong to him.
The Witnesses
The family witnesses from whom I heard oral evidence were Lisa, David and, (briefly and uncontroversially) Nora's sister Rosie, all of whom gave their evidence remotely by CVP, and John, Charles, Lorraine and James, all of whom gave their evidence face to face after the hearing moved from London to Leeds. There was also an Affidavit from Nora.
The evidence of the family witnesses mainly addressed the informal agreements and understandings which it was alleged had been made concerning the disputed properties and chattels. Taking into account the inevitable fallibility of the witnesses in recalling past events, particularly events which took place many years ago, the motives of the witnesses in giving evidence concerning matters in which they had a direct financial interest, their ingrained sense of what they and other family members are entitled to and their strong personal feelings towards the other family members, I came to the conclusion that I should treat the evidence of the family witnesses with considerable caution. As noted by Robert Goff LJ in Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, 57:
“It is frequently very difficult to tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not; and where there is a conflict of evidence such as there was in the present case, reference to the objective facts and documents, references to the witness' motives and to the overall probabilities can be of very great assistance to a judge in ascertaining the truth.”
Lisa had an exceptionally close relationship with Nora. Lisa's relationship with Charles and John, which appears to have never been close, broke down completely following the family dispute in 2015. Lisa worked as the bookkeeper for the family business and gave evidence as to, amongst other things, the funding of the purchase price and renovation works at Wood House. Her recollection on a number of matters (such as her adamant assertions that her mother invariably signed guarantees given on behalf of the family companies and that David had been a director of the family company J.L.D. Metals Ltd) was shown to be inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents and overall I did not regard her testimony as entirely reliable.
David fell out with Charles and John in about 2005 after which he ceased to be involved with the family business and went his own way. His evidence was mainly concerned with family discussions which were said to have taken place concerning the Edlington Wood properties. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants in closing that David's participation in the proceedings stemmed from his dependence on Lisa for provision from Nora's estate. Whether or not this was true (and it was not put to him in cross-examination), I did not regard him as a neutral observer given his obvious antipathy towards John.
Rose gave uncontentious evidence about Nora's complaints about Lorraine and her family being in Edlington.
Had she been alive, Nora would have been a key witness in the case. Shortly before her death, she swore an Affidavit setting out her record of dealings with the family properties and companies. The reliability of the Affidavit could not be tested by cross-examination and I accept the defendants' submission that her account of the background was partial and her description of the circumstances in which the Edlington Wood properties were acquired was incomplete and inaccurate in material respects.
Charles is now aged 91 and frail. In view of his age, poor eyesight and hearing difficulties certain accommodations were made in order to facilitate his giving of oral evidence. Charles stated in cross examination that he did not recall having agreed, read, or signed his witness statement around six weeks previously and he answered many questions by stating that he could not remember, did not know, or provided no response to the question asked, including where these questions directed at matters discussed within his own witness statement. My impression was nevertheless that Charles was able to follow the questions put to him.
Charles has a close relationship with John and was plainly keen to support John's claim. He confirmed the truth of John's witness statement and, in cross-examination, volunteered supportive evidence about material matters which, if accurate, I would have expected to have been included in his and John's witness statements. Overall, I consider that I should not rely on Charles's uncorroborated evidence.
John's witness statement includes a detailed account of the family history and dealings with companies and properties including the oral agreement which he alleges was made in 1983 or 1984 concerning his and Lorraine's future ownership of Wood House and the renovation works carried out to it. He was unable to explain satisfactorily some inherently implausible features of the alleged arrangement with Nora and Charles to which I refer later in the judgment.
James gave evidence as to the amount which he claimed that he had spent on fixtures and fittings in the Annex adjoining Wood House.
Apart from the family witnesses, there was a witness statement from Ian Potter, a partner in the solicitor firm of Ward Bracewell & Co, later Taylor Bracewell, formerly the family solicitor who acted for Charles and Nora from 1979 until his retirement in 2011. This was adduced by Lisa pursuant to a Civil Evidence Act notice on the ground that Mr Potter was too unwell to attend the hearing. The witness statement confirmed an earlier signed statement made by Mr Potter in 2019. I regard the evidence of Mr Potter, as a solicitor and neutral observer with close involvement in Charles and Nora's property transactions and Wills, as a valuable source of information as to Charles and Nora's intentions with regard to the ownership and the bequeathing of their assets.
The defendants also called Paul Gregory and Kelvin Fitton, who are partners in the accountancy firm of Smith Craven, who gave evidence by video link about a family meeting in December 2015 and Bryan Hargreaves, who gave evidence about works carried out at Wood House.
The Background
The Family business
Nora and Charles built up their wealth through the family's business and various companies, and they together purchased and maintained a portfolio of properties. They started life in the East End of London where from the mid 1950's they operated a rag trade business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaswinder Singh Bahia v Inderdeep Singh Sidhu (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tara Singh Sidhu)
...interest are closely analogous (this much was recognised by Lord Neuberger in Stack v Dowden at [128] and see Pickering v Hughes [2021] EWHC 1672 (Ch) per Andrew Lenon QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge at [62]). In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with Mr Temmink that in cas......
-
Resolution Podcast: When Two Worlds Collide ' TOLATA And The CPR For Family Lawyers
...John about the intersection between civil and family proceedings. Further information and resources Pickering v Hughes & Ors [2021] EWHC 1672 (Ch) Assembling a TOLATA Click here for the podcast The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Special......
-
Resolution Podcast: When Two Worlds Collide ' TOLATA And The CPR For Family Lawyers
...John about the intersection between civil and family proceedings. Further information and resources Pickering v Hughes & Ors [2021] EWHC 1672 (Ch) Assembling a TOLATA Click here for the podcast The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Special......