The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent v Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of Harlesden Peoples Community Council)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Michael Green |
| Judgment Date | 01 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT/2018/000426 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 01 October 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr Michael Green QC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
Case No: PT/2018/000426
Katharine Holland QC and Admas Habteslasie (instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) for the Claimant
Stephen Cottle (instructed by Hogan Lovells) for the First and Second Defendants
The Third Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 21–24, 27–30 July 2020
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 as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Michael Green QC
Mr Michael Green QC:
CONTENTS
| Paragraphs | ||
| A | ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS | 1 |
| B | INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND | 2 – 11 |
| C | RELIEF SOUGHT AND MAIN ISSUES | 12 – 14 |
| D | WITNESSES | 15 – 41 |
| E | DETAILED FACTS | 42 – 140 |
| F | STANDING ISSUE | 141 – 168 |
| G | RESULTING TRUST ISSUE | 169 – 189 |
| H | CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ISSUE | 190 – 227 |
| I | PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL ISSUE | 228 – 245 |
| J | ALTERNATIVE ESTOPPELS ISSUE | 246 – 250 |
| K | CHARITABLE TRUST ISSUE | 251 – 294 |
| L | APPROPRIATE REMEDY | 295 – 306 |
| M | DISPOSITION AND CONCLUSION | 307 – 312 |
A. ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
In this Judgment I will use the following abbreviations and definitions:
Attorney General
The Third Defendant
Brent; or the Council
The Claimant
Bridge Park; or the Property; or the Site
The land on the south west side of Brentfield, Stonebridge, NW10 ORG; registered under title no: NGL426015
CLSA
Conditional Land Sale Agreement dated 14 June 2017 between Brent, SRED, GMH and Harborough Invest Inc, by which part of the Site was to be bought by SRED, the other part to be retained by Brent.
December 1981 Report
A Report entitled “ Stonebridge Bus Depot Project Report” prepared by the Steering Group together with support from Brent for the purposes of progressing the acquisition of Bridge Park
The Defendants
The First and Second Defendants
DofE
The Department of the Environment
GLC
Greater London Council
GMH
General Mediterranean Holdings SA, the owner of an adjoining site to the Property
HPCC
Harlesden Peoples Community Council, an unincorporated association formed in 1981 principally by Mr Johnson, who was, and claims still to be, its Chair
Mr Johnson
Mr Leonard Johnson, the First Defendant; the founder of HPCC and claiming to be the Chair and a trustee of HPCC
LTE
London Transport Executive, former freehold owners of the Property, which was a Bus Depot
PRC
The Policy and Resources Committee of Brent
Project
The acquisition of Bridge Park followed by its development and management as a community and leisure centre being run by and on behalf of the local community
SCT
The Second Defendant, a company incorporated on 16 March 2018 and claiming to be the transferee of interests that HPCC owned in the Property
SRED
Stonebridge Real Estate Development Limited, a company that is part of the GMH Group.
Steering Group
A Group set up for the purposes of progressing the acquisition of Bridge Park and made up of HPCC members together with other community representatives and Brent Councillors
Steering Group Company
HPCC Bus Garage Project Steering Group Limited, a company incorporated on 21 January 1983
B. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Bridge Park Community Centre was a remarkable concept, the brainchild of Mr Leonard Johnson, the First Defendant, and the organisation that he founded, the Harlesden Peoples Community Council ( HPCC). The vision in 1981 was to establish a centre in the London Borough of Brent that was owned and managed by the local black community for themselves, not beholden to anyone else, and which, by its very nature, would empower that community and would prevent unrest, principally by its disaffected youth, from becoming violent, leading to riots similar to those that had taken place in Brixton and Toxteth at that time. Brent was the most ethnically diverse borough in the country and it was feared that there would be similar riots to those that had taken place elsewhere. But Mr Johnson and the creation of Bridge Park were a massive factor in ensuring that Brent did not suffer in the same way.
Bridge Park was an old LTE Bus Depot and Mr Johnson and HPCC identified the site and determinedly pursued its acquisition as a place where they could realise their philosophy of providing a space where the local community could establish themselves and grow and succeed by their own efforts, without interference from outside.
However, as a fledgling organisation without any financial resources, HPCC was in no position to purchase the Site. They had to involve the Council, together with central government and the GLC in order for there to be any chance of the Site being acquired. As it turned out, Brent acquired the site from LTE on 5 May 1982 for £1.8 million and legal title was transferred into Brent's name.
As explained in more detail below, the purchase consideration was made up by a number of grants from the DofE and the GLC, with the balance, an agreed amount of £834,500, being paid by Brent itself. The Defendants say that the grant monies were only obtained because of the involvement of HPCC and were earmarked for the project and so should be considered to be contributions to the purchase price made by HPCC. In other words, they say that a substantial part of the purchase price was paid by or on behalf of HPCC and that therefore Brent held Bridge Park on resulting trust for HPCC in proportion to its contribution. The Defendants alternatively claim beneficial interests in Bridge Park on the basis of constructive trust, proprietary and promissory estoppel and/or estoppel by convention. They also maintain that Bridge Park was bought for charitable purposes and has always therefore been held by Brent on a charitable trust. That is why the Attorney General was joined to the proceedings but the Attorney General has indicated that she adopts a neutral position on whether Bridge Park is held on a charitable trust.
The reason why the Defendants are maintaining these claims against Brent's title to Bridge Park is because they object to what Brent wishes now to do with the Site. After successfully developing and operating Bridge Park through the Steering Group Company during the 1980s, the early 1990s saw the beginning of its demise. Whilst the reasons for this are contested, possession proceedings were commenced by Brent in 1992 and by 1995 Brent had taken over control of Bridge Park and it was managed directly by Brent since then. Over the years it has fallen into disrepair and it is proving very expensive for Brent to run.
Brent has therefore sought to formulate plans as to what to do with the Site. Following a local consultation in 2013 at which various options were put to the local community, Brent decided to pursue the possibility of building a newly enhanced leisure and community facility that would incorporate a swimming pool. However, in order to fund this redevelopment, Brent decided to sell part of the Site to an adjoining landowner, GMH, and entered into the CLSA on 14 June 2017.
The Defendants do not wish to see the Site, acquired through their efforts and for the fulfilment of the project, sold off and for Brent to be able to “ profit” from Bridge Park. Brent denies that it would profit from the sale and says that it is necessary to sell part of the Site in order to be able to fund the newly enhanced leisure facility which will be for the benefit of the whole of the local community, including HPCC. On 18 August 2017, Mr Johnson made an application for a restriction to be entered against Brent's title to Bridge Park and it is that application that has led to these proceedings in which Brent seeks a declaration that it is the sole legal and beneficial owner of Bridge Park.
As I said during the course of the trial, I must decide the case according to law and by reference to quite well-defined legal principles governing interests in land, including whether a charitable trust of the Site could be created in the circumstances of this case. Proprietary rights in land are not recognised on the grounds of morality or sympathy; they are founded largely on rules of equity in relation to which there needs to be a reasonable degree of certainty, so that title to land is not unduly affected by unknown and unregistered interests. As such, I doubt that my judgment on those issues will resolve the differences and grievances that appear unfortunately to have prevented this matter from being settled out of court.
To my mind, it became clear, during the hearing of this case, that there has been some confusion as to what is meant by “ownership”. Both parties are claiming ownership of the Property. But hearing the Defendants' witnesses in particular, it seems to me that the ownership they envisaged, before the acquisition of the Property, was more related to the project, to their vision and to the concept, rather than actual legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent v Leonard Johnson (claiming to be a Trustee of ‘Harlesden Peoples Community Council’)
...sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division, held that Brent was the sole legal and beneficial owner of the land. His judgment is at [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch). The background facts 3 I can take the background facts, none of which may be challenged in this appeal, from the judge's comprehensive......
-
Mills v Laboyrie & ORS As Trustees of The Galway Trust
...The majority comprising of Arden and McFarlane LJJ. Lord Briggs of Westbourne, above n 46, at 574. London Borough of Brent v Johnson [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch). [63] Consistent with that approach we do not perceive the Pallant v Morgan as defined by the five probanda in Banner Homes, as apt for ......