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

Whilst it was accepted that DFH had legal title to the Property, it was asserted that Mr and Mrs Gold were the beneficial owners thereof by virtue of the operation of a proprietary estoppel and/or pursuant to a resulting or constructive trust.

Further or in the alternative, that DFH had executed a Declaration of Trust declaring that the Property was held in trust for Mrs Gold.

DFH and Mr Daniel were liable to repay loans made by Mr and Mrs Gold, in respect of which £629,576.53 was due together with interest thereupon.

When Mr and Mrs Gold had taken up occupation of the Property in or about 2007, it had been agreed that they should pay rent in respect thereof that would not be payable on an ongoing basis, but which would be set off against the amounts due in respect of the monies loaned by Mr and Mrs Gold, with the consequence that no monies were now due and owing in respect of the latter. It was subsequently alleged that Mr and Mrs Gold had entered into an Assured Shorthold Tenancy (“AST”) agreement in respect of the Property in 2008 providing for the payment of a fixed amount by way of rent.

No interest was due in respect of the loans made by Mr and Mrs Gold in any event.

Mr Daniel was entitled to set off against outstanding loan monies certain charges and expenses, including charges agreed between Mr Daniel and Mrs Gold for the storage on Mr Daniel’s land of vehicles belonging to Mr Gold. As advanced at trial, the case was that Mr Daniel had agreed with Mrs Gold in 2019 that he could retrospectively charge for storage of the vehicles and then dispose of them a month later.

Mr and Mrs Gold had no beneficial interest in the Property on any of the bases upon which they contended that they had acquired an interest. In particular, she held that payments relied upon by Mr and Mrs Gold as contributions towards an interest in the Property had not been paid or had not been paid as such contributions. Further, she held that no Declaration of Trust relating to the Property had been executed.

One of the payments that the Judge, in the Judgment, thought that Mr and Mrs Gold were relying upon as a contribution towards an interest in the Property was a particular payment of £121,000. Whilst she did not accept that this was such a contribution, she did hold that this sum had been lent by Mr and Mrs Gold and ought thus to be brought into account.

There had been no agreement that Mr and Mrs Gold should pay rent for their occupation of the Property. The AST agreement that had, somewhat belatedly, been produced by DFH had not, she held, in fact been executed or entered into with Mr and Mrs Gold. Further, the Judge held that Mr Daniel had given a number of different explanations as to what had, or had not been agreed so far as rent was concerned, and the explanation that she preferred was one given by Mr Daniel in a witness statement made in bankruptcy proceedings in 2020 in which, as understood by the Judge, Mr Daniel had agreed that Mr and Mrs Gold could move into the Property as a quid pro quo for the assistance that the latter were giving by the making of large loans to DFH and/or Mr Daniel, and as a way of giving something back for what was then the close friendship between Mr Daniel and Mr and Mrs Gold. Consequently, so the Judge held, it having been agreed that Mr and Mrs Gold could occupy the Property rent free, there was no rent to be offset against the otherwise outstanding loans.

Save in relation to two early loans that were documented, it had not been agreed that interest should be paid on the loans made by Mr and Mrs Gold, and no interest was payable thereon. Consequently, it was unnecessary for her to make any findings in relation to the rate of interest that might be payable in the absence of express agreement as to rate.

As to the alleged agreement relating to the storage of vehicles on Mr Daniel’s land, Mr and Mrs Gold had denied in evidence that any such agreement had been reached, and it was further contended that Mrs Gold had no authority to enter into the relevant agreement with Mr Daniel. Unfortunately, despite the respective parties having been cross-examined on this issue, the Judge did not make any finding as to whether any such agreement had been concluded, or whether Mrs Gold had authority to contract on behalf of her husband. However, she concluded that there was no binding agreement. This was because she rejected the submission that there was fresh consideration for the alleged agreement in the expenditure required to dispose of the vehicles because there was no evidence as to the cost of disposal or otherwise as to the expenditure alleged to have been incurred.

The Judge held that Mr and Mrs Gold were, by the time of the trial at least, trespasses at the Property, but she did not award damages or other compensation for their use and occupation of the Property from 2 June 2021, when DFH’s notice to quit had expired.