Patricia Sledmore (Plaintiff/Appellant) v Alec James Dalby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | ORDER |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWCA Civ J0208-10 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CCRTF95/0337/G |
| Date | 08 February 1996 |
[1996] EWCA Civ J0208-10
(Mr. Recorder Phillips)
Before: Lord Justice Butler-Sloss Lord Justice Roch Lord Justice Hobhouse
CCRTF95/0337/G
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT
MR. LIONEL SCOTT (Instructed by Messrs Pinsent Curtis, 41 Park Square, Leeds, LS1 2NS) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. GORDON LAKIN (Instructed by Messrs Langleys, Queens House, Micklegate, York, YO1 1JH) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
ROCH LJ:
This action concerns a dwelling house, 15A, The Green, Acomb, York. The freehold was bought on the 5 March 1962 by the appellant and her late husband, Joseph Harrison Sledmore. The property was part of a larger holding which comprised in addition to this house, three further dwelling houses, a large workshop, showroom and land. In the workshop and showroom the businesses of panel beating and the sale of second hand cars were carried on by a company, Danebury Panel Works Ltd, the shares in which were owned by Mr & Mrs Sledmore and of which they were directors.
15A was occupied by Mr Sledmore's brother until 1965, when Mr Sledmore's brother moved elsewhere.
At that time the respondent married Jacqueline Sledmore the daughter and eldest child of Mr & Mrs Sledmore. The respondent was a fitter/welder who was in employment at that time. He was not employed by Danebury Panel Works Ltd. Following their marriage, the respondent and Jacqueline Dalby as she then became lived at 15A. 15A was a two bedroomed terraced cottage. Jacqueline Dalby worked as a mobile hairdresser, although such work was irregular and provided her with an income which could properly be described, colloquially, as pin money. They paid rent for No 15A, the rent being paid by Jacqueline Dalby to her mother, the appellant. Initially that rent was £2 per week and rose to the figure of £6 per week in 1976 when it ceased to be paid. The Recorder in his judgment found that that rent was somewhat below the rent that would have been obtainable for the property on the open market.
In 1973 Mr Sledmore discussed selling the house to the respondent and Jacqueline Dalby for the sum of £6,000 on condition that he could buy back the house. The respondent's evidence was that he and his wife were not interested in that proposal.
In early 1976 Mr Sledmore, who had guaranteed a debt for the company of some £2,000 wished to raise £2,000. On the 22 September that year he visited his bank manager who recorded the conversation between them. That record was to the effect that he, Mr Sledmore, wished to transfer 15A to his daughter and son-in-law for value and Mr Sledmore was inquiring whether his daughter and son-in-law would be able to borrow £2,000 from the bank with the house as security, so as to be able to pay the sum of £2,000 to him. The evidence before the Recorder indicated that Mr Sledmore offered the house to his daughter and son-in-law at the sum of £6,000 suggesting that they raise £2,000 of that figure by way of mortgage. The respondent's evidence was that he and his wife had already been told by Mr Sledmore on more than one occasion that ultimately the house would be theirs; that Mr Sledmore as a term of transferring the house to them at that time wanted a provision which would enable him to buy back the house if he wished to do so. The offer was unattractive according to the respondent because if he and his wife bought the house from his father-in-law the only person to whom they could sell the house would be his father-in-law who might not be in a position to buy it which might result in them missing another property which they might wish to buy. The respondent also asserted that for the sum of £6,000 he and his wife would have been able to buy an attractive semi-detached house, the implication being that No 15A in 1976 was not worth £6,000.
A further event in 1976 which is of considerable importance in this case was the discovery that Jacqueline Dalby was suffering from breast cancer. She underwent an operation for removal of a breast. At about the same time the respondent became unemployed. As a consequence of those two events, the appellant ceased to accept rent from Jacqueline Dalby and thereafter the Dalby's lived rent free at No 15A until her death in 1983. Since 1983 the respondent has lived there rent free, initially with both his daughters, but since the marriage of his elder daughter with the younger daughter who is now 27 years of age. The respondent has a female partner who lives in York. The use the respondent makes of No 15A is that he spends every Thursday night there and most Tuesday nights. Apart from those nights he lives with his female partner in York. The respondent is in employment. The respondent's younger daughter also has employment as a mobile hairdresser.
The Judge found that between 1976 and 1979 the appellant and her husband formed the intention of giving No 15A to their daughter and son-in-law, and that Mr Sledmore told the respondent and Jacqueline Dalby of that intention. The appellant during her evidence had said that that was well known within the family. That was an intention she and her husband had formed when Jacqueline became ill. The judge found that the appellant although she might not have been present when her husband told the respondent and Jacqueline of their intent certainly knew all about it. The judge further found that between 1976 and 1979 major improvements to the house were carried out by the respondent. Those were the construction of a bathroom on the ground floor and a further bedroom out of the old bathroom on the first floor, renovation of the kitchen with the installation of new kitchen units and a secondhand split level cooker, and the installation of central heating. Some of the cost of this work was defrayed by Mr Sledmore, for example he paid for the bathroom units and for the necessary plastering work. The remainder was done by the respondent who also purchased the necessary equipment and materials to complete the work. In his judgment the Recorder made no specific finding as to the sums expended by the respondent nor as to the number of hours work carried out by him. The evidence contained in the respondent's witness statement and in the transcript of his evidence to the Recorder indicate that although the sums in total were probably less than £1,000, they were substantial in relation to the then value of the property. There was no evidence as to the extent to which the value of the property was enhanced by this work.
In 1979 the appellant and her husband contacted their solicitors because they wished to ensure that their daughter inherited No 15A to the exclusion of the respondent. Correspondence passing between the Sledmores and their solicitor and the wills which resulted from their instructions to their solicitor are in the appeal bundle. Counsel accepted that the Recorder in his judgment accurately summarised the effect of the previous wills made by the appellant and her husband in 1972 and of the new wills made in 1979. Briefly Mr Sledmore's 1972 will provided that the income from his residuary estate was to go to the appellant for her life and after her death the residuary estate was to be held in equal shares for his children who attained the age of 18 with a survivorship clause in the case that any one of them predeceased him leaving children. The appellant made a will in virtually the same form which the Recorder regarded as a mutual will. In 1979, on the advice of their solicitors, new wills were executed. Prior to the execution of those wills, Mr Sledmore conveyed his share in No 15A to the appellant making her the sole owner of the fee simple in that property. His 1979 will provided that if the appellant predeceased him then his estate was to go to such of his children as survived him and if more than one in equal shares absolutely provided that if they had died in his life time leaving issue such issue were to receive that child's share by way of substitution. If the appellant did survive him he left the whole of his estate on trust for sale to hold it in two equal parts one part for the appellant and the other part for his two sons. In the event of the appellant surviving him Mr Sledmore left nothing to his daughter Jacqueline.
The will of the appellant made in 1979 in its first substantive gift devised to Jacqueline Dalby "absolutely free of any tax which may be payable thereon or attributable thereto by reason of the appellant's death her freehold property known as 15A, The Green, Acomb". There was no gift over in the event of Jacqueline Dalby predeceasing her mother. Subsequently in the will the remainder of her estate, after specific bequests relating to her jewellery and personal belongings, was divided equally among her three children or their issue if one of them died within her lifetime. The result was that if, as in fact happened, Jacqueline Dalby died in her mother's lifetime, the house 15A would go into the residue and be divided along with the rest of her estate apart from her personal effects among her three children or their issue if her children predeceased her leaving issue.
Mr Sledmore died in 1980. Jacqueline Dalby died in 1983. In 1985 the company went into liquidation. A property and development company was incorporated, which redeveloped part of the property as 16 flats forming sheltered accommodation for elderly persons. In 1987 most of the garden of 15A was taken for the purposes of that development with the acquiesence of the respondent. In that year the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brendan O'Rourke v Diane O'Rourke (Removed by Order of the Court), Dermot O'Rourke, Perle O'Rourke and Ulster Bank Ireland DAC
...the doctrine of propriety estoppel including Ramsden v. Dyson (1886) LR 1 HL 1229, Gillette v. Holt [2001] Ch. 210, Sledmore v. Dalby [1996] 72 P&CR 196 and Finnegan v. Hand [2016] IEHC 255 where White J. quoted from Biehler, “Equity and the Law of Trusts in Ireland” (2016) (6 th Ed. p. 83......
-
Jennings v Rice
...438 F), including the financial position of the parties. This case does not support Mr Warner's submission. 27 In Sledmore v Dalby [1996] 72 P & CR 196, Roch LJ gave the leading judgment which was agreed to by Butler-Sloss LJ. Having cited a passage from the 29th edition of Snell's Equity, ......
-
Guest and another v Guest
...There was no attempt to value either the expectation or the detriment, still less to choose the cheaper as the “minimum equity”. 35 In Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P & CR 196 Mr and Mrs Sledmore allowed their daughter Jacqueline and her husband Mr Dalby use of an unoccupied house which they ......
-
Lucy Ann Andrews Habberfield v Jane Sarah Andrews Habberfield
...But the typical case in which that is so is a case in which the claimant has already received sufficient benefit. In Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P & CR 196, Mr Sledmore had already enjoyed 15 years' rent-free occupation by the time that he tried to raise the equity. This court held that any ......