Irving John Cleave & Anor v Mary Louise Cleave
[2024] EWHC 2492 (Ch)
David Arthur Steuart Gladstone & Anor v Leigh Elaine Anna White & Ors
17 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 329 (Ch)
High Court
David wanted his house back from Leigh. Leigh said David promised her the house. The judge said David didn't promise it clearly enough, and Leigh hadn't done enough to deserve it. The judge also said Leigh tricked David into giving her lots of money, so she has to give it back. Leigh also has to leave the house.
Key Facts
- •David Gladstone seeks possession of Wotton House from Leigh White, claiming undue influence regarding investment bonds assigned to Leigh.
- •Leigh counterclaims, alleging proprietary estoppel based on David's assurances that she would inherit Wotton.
- •David seeks Leigh's removal as a trustee of the New WEMF (a settlement for Wotton's grounds maintenance).
- •Leigh admits possession but argues proprietary estoppel, conceding to relinquish possession upon David's death, subject to safeguards.
- •The investment bonds had an aggregate value of approximately £800,000 and were assigned to Leigh without legal restrictions.
- •Leigh claims detriment by becoming involved in Wotton's management, affecting her legal career and family life.
- •David alleges undue influence in the assignment of the bonds, claiming a presumption of undue influence arising from their relationship.
- •Wotton House is a Grade 1 listed building of substantial value (£10-£15 million), while the London properties are also valuable (£7 million in 2013).
Legal Principles
Proprietary estoppel requires proof of assurance, reasonable reliance, and detriment.
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
Proprietary estoppel elements are not watertight compartments; the court looks at the matter in the round.
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
The aim of the remedy in proprietary estoppel is to prevent unconscionable conduct.
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
Undue influence requires proof of a relationship of trust and confidence and a transaction requiring explanation; the burden then shifts to the donee to rebut.
Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No. 2) [2002] 2 AC 773
Outcomes
David's claim for possession of Wotton House is granted.
Leigh failed to establish proprietary estoppel; assurances were not unambiguous, reliance was unreasonable, and detriment was not substantial.
Leigh's counterclaim for a declaration to remain at Wotton and transfer of properties is dismissed.
Proprietary estoppel claim failed.
Leigh's removal as trustee of the New WEMF is ordered.
Relationship breakdown between Leigh and David, and Leigh's failure to establish proprietary estoppel.
David's claim that the assignment of bonds to Leigh was procured by undue influence is granted.
A relationship of trust and confidence existed, the transaction called for explanation due to its size and lack of restrictions, and Leigh failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.