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

Ground 1 – It is submitted that after the Judge had determined that Mr and Mrs Gold had not acquired or obtained a beneficial interest in the Property, it was not open to her to find that there was no agreement with regard to the payment by Mr and Mrs Gold of rent which would be available to DFH and/or Mr Daniel to set-off against the loans otherwise due. This was said to be on the basis, amongst other things, that there was no evidence from Mr and Mrs Gold to this effect, and the Judge’s finding was therefore wrong (“the Rent Issue”).

Ground 2 - It is submitted that the Judge, having found that Mr and Mrs Gold were trespassers, “erred in law” by failing to award damages or charge for use and occupation of the Property from 2 June 2021, when the relevant notice to quit expired (“the Damages for Trespass Issue”).

Ground 3 - It is submitted that the Judge was wrong to find that the loan of £121,000 had been made by Mr and Mrs Gold, in that it is submitted that she failed to weigh the evidence appropriately and was materially influenced by an error of fact that Mr Gold had claimed such a payment was for a beneficial interest in the Property (“the £121,000 Loan Issue”).

Ground 4 - It is submitted that the Judge “erred in law” by finding that no further consideration had been provided by DFH/Mr Daniel following the agreement for Mr Daniel to charge for car storage (“the Car Storage Issue”).

Ground 5 - It is submitted that the Judge exercised her discretion incorrectly by ordering DFH and Mr Daniel to pay Mr and Mrs Gold 50% of their costs, and wrong to order that Mr and Mrs Gold only pay DFH and Mr Daniel 50% of their costs. It is said that the Judge wrongly stated that 50% of Mr and Mrs Gold’s costs had been spent on their money claim, and that she failed to have regard or sufficient regard to the conduct of Mr and Mrs Gold in the proceedings and their only partial success on their money claims.