CH-2025-000012 and CH-2025-000014 - [2025] EWHC 2697 (Ch)

As explained in paragraph 36 above, a consequence of my allowing Ground 2 of the appeal is that I must dismiss Ground 2 of the cross-appeal concerning the Possession Issue, this is because I am satisfied that, as the Judge found, Mr Gold and Mrs Gold became trespassers in the Property in June 2021 on the expiration of the notice to quit, which determined their licence to occupy.

I therefore dismiss Ground 2 of the cross-appeal.

Mr Taylor, in my view quite correctly, accepted on behalf of Mr and Mrs Gold that if I upheld the Judge’s decision on the Rent Issue, then it would be appropriate to uphold her decision on the Interest Issue and dismiss Ground 3 of the cross-appeal, at least subject to the point considered in paragraph 92 below.

I have noted the Judge’s finding in respect of interest in paragraph 21(iii) above. She tied the question of interest in with the close relationship between Mr Daniel and Mr and Mrs Gold, and the provision of accommodation to them in the form of the use of the Property and other factors relating to her finding a quid pro quo that underpinned her decision on the rent issue. On this basis, it seems to me that, subject to the point considered in paragraph 95 below, the Interest Issue stands and falls with the Rent Issue.

Thus if I had allowed Ground 1 of the appeal relating to the Rent Issue, then I would have allowed Ground 3 of the cross-appeal on the basis that both issues turn on the Judge’s finding as to the existence of the quid pro quo that she found underpinned the arrangements between the parties as she did in paragraphs 45 and 83 of the Judgment in particular.

However, as I have concluded that the Judge’s finding could not properly be said to be clearly wrong, or one that no reasonable judge could have reached on the evidence, Ground 3 of the cross-appeal should be dismissed, subject to the point considered in paragraph 95 below.

In paragraph 35 above, I concluded that it must have been open to either party to determine the informal quid pro quo on reasonable notice as DFH did with effect from 2 June 2021, and that if that happened then DFH would become entitled to possession of the Property, the loans would become repayable and interest would become payable on the loans at a reasonable commercial rate. Thus, I consider that interest would have become payable on the loans as from 2 June 2021, and to this limited extent, I would allow ground 3 of the cross-appeal.

I consider it appropriate to dismiss all the Grounds of Appeal and Grounds of Cross-appeal, apart from: