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

Fecha: 20-Oct-2025

Mr and Mrs Gold’s Cross-Appeal

Mr and Mrs Gold’s Cross-Appeal

12.

The Grounds of Cross-Appeal advanced by Mr and Mrs Gold can be summarised as follows:

Ground 1- It is submitted that the Judge’s decision that Mr and Mrs Gold did not hold a beneficial interest in the Property was wrong, and that she reached a factual conclusion in respect thereof that could not be supported by the evidence, and which no judge could reasonably have reached. Particular reliance is placed upon the following:

An email exchange between Mr Daniel and Mr Coyle, his Solicitor, in October 2009 which the Judge did not deal with in the Judgment and which is said to be explicable only on the basis that Mr Daniel recognised that Mr and Mrs Gold had a beneficial interest in the Property;

An email from Mr Daniel to Porchester Homes dated 6 February 2010 referring to the Property as being that of Mr Gold;

The Judge’s error in proceeding on the basis that Mr and Mrs Gold were contending that the payment of £121,000 was a contribution to the Property, whereas their pleaded case was that, in return for an interest in a different property, 3 Thurlstone Road, it was agreed that Mr and Mrs Gold would acquire an interest in the Property. It is said that the Judge, therefore, failed to address this factual issue.

A contention that her factual finding that the Declaration of Trust had not been executed was a factual finding that no judge could reasonably have reached for a number of reasons that were advanced.

(“The Beneficial Interest Issue”)

ii)

Ground 2 - It is submitted that the Judge “erred in law” in finding that DFH was entitled to possession of the Property before repayment of the loans (“the Possession Issue”).

iii)

Ground 3 – It is submitted that the Judge was wrong to find that interest was not payable on the loans advanced by Mr and Mrs Gold (“the Interest Issue”). However, Mr Taylor made clear in submissions that this ground of appeal is only advanced in the event that I should reach a different conclusion from the Judge in respect of the Rent Issue.