A and B enter quite informally into a joint venture that involves the acquisition of a piece of property, usually, but not necessarily, land. A acquires the property. Relying upon their agreement, B expends money and/or labour on the project, or possibly forgoes an opportunity to acquire the property for himself. A backs out of the deal. B claims that the agreement entitles him to a share of the property.
So much for generalities. A comprehensive list of the matters that B has to establish may be found in
Interestingly, the detrimental reliance pleaded by the claimants in both cases was their decision not to put in a competing bid for the property in question.
Both decisions applied much of the reasoning in Yaxley v Gott [1999] EGCS 92: see
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
A and B enter quite informally into a joint venture that involves the acquisition of a piece of property, usually, but not necessarily, land. A acquires the property. Relying upon their agreement, B expends money and/or labour on the project, or possibly forgoes an opportunity to acquire the property for himself. A backs out of the deal. B claims that the agreement entitles him to a share of the property.
Q Can A resist the claim on the ground that, for reasons of want of formalities or otherwise, there was no binding contract?
A Not if B can establish that a constructive trust has arisen in his favour, the gist of his claim being that he acted to his detriment in reliance upon the agreement.
So much for generalities. A comprehensive list of the matters that B has to establish may be found in As good as his word Estates Gazette 29 April 2000, p163, where Keith Conway, of Titmss Seiner Dechert, provides a careful analysis of Banner Homes Group plc v Luff Developments [2000] EGCS 15. Your researches should also include Hooper v Gorvin [2001] EGCS 1.
Interestingly, the detrimental reliance pleaded by the claimants in both cases was their decision not to put in a competing bid for the property in question.
Both decisions applied much of the reasoning in Yaxley v Gott [1999] EGCS 92: see PP 2002/107 on how such a trust may circumvent the contractual formalities otherwise required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
