McGuane v Welch [electronic resource]
McGuane v Welch [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 785, 11 July 2008. Appellant tenant agreeing to sell lease to respondent at significant undervalue after holding lease on express trust for three years and then refusing to transfer. Appellant (M) sought to have a transaction with respondent (W) set aside as being invalid. M agreed to sell his lease on a secure council tenancy for cash to W and received various payments. W took out a mortgage to finance the purchase through the right to buy scheme and took over all costs of paying this and other household expenses (including renovations). M agreed to hold the property in trust for three years to avoid repayment of the discount obtained through right to buy and then refused to transfer the lease to W after this period. Held: appeal was allowed. M remained the beneficial holder of the lease and at no point did he hold the lease in constructive trust for W. Also, the original judge had misunderstood the law of estoppel and should not have ordered the transfer of the lease, rather looking to provide W with the minimum equity to do justice. The contract was held as not binding and the judge ordered a county court case to determine the amount required to be repaid to W to compensate him for the monies expended on the mortgage and refurbishing the property.
CRESSWELL V POTTER
JENNINGS V RICE AND OTHERS
MCGUANE V WELCH
BACKHOUSE V BACKHOUSE
CENTRAL TRUST AND SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY V SNIDER
PARINV (HATFIELD) LTD V IRC
TAYLOR FASHIONS LTD V LIVERPOOL VICTORIA TRUSTEES CO LTD
YAXLEY V GOTTS
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 785, 11 July 2008. Appellant tenant agreeing to sell lease to respondent at significant undervalue after holding lease on express trust for three years and then refusing to transfer. Appellant (M) sought to have a transaction with respondent (W) set aside as being invalid. M agreed to sell his lease on a secure council tenancy for cash to W and received various payments. W took out a mortgage to finance the purchase through the right to buy scheme and took over all costs of paying this and other household expenses (including renovations). M agreed to hold the property in trust for three years to avoid repayment of the discount obtained through right to buy and then refused to transfer the lease to W after this period. Held: appeal was allowed. M remained the beneficial holder of the lease and at no point did he hold the lease in constructive trust for W. Also, the original judge had misunderstood the law of estoppel and should not have ordered the transfer of the lease, rather looking to provide W with the minimum equity to do justice. The contract was held as not binding and the judge ordered a county court case to determine the amount required to be repaid to W to compensate him for the monies expended on the mortgage and refurbishing the property.
CRESSWELL V POTTER
JENNINGS V RICE AND OTHERS
MCGUANE V WELCH
BACKHOUSE V BACKHOUSE
CENTRAL TRUST AND SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY V SNIDER
PARINV (HATFIELD) LTD V IRC
TAYLOR FASHIONS LTD V LIVERPOOL VICTORIA TRUSTEES CO LTD
YAXLEY V GOTTS
England and Wales--1543-