The Estate of Nafisa Hasan (deceased) v Digit Limited (in liquidation) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1127 (Ch)
David William Dixon & Anor. v The Crown Estate Commissioners
22 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3256 (Ch)
High Court
Two cousins thought they owned houses after their building company dissolved. They paid taxes based on that belief. Even though it was a mistake, the court said it would be unfair to let the Crown keep the houses, so the cousins now officially own them.
Key Facts
- •Dixon Prestige Homes Limited (the company) was struck off and dissolved on June 15, 2010.
- •Claimants David and Keith Dixon were shareholders and directors of the company.
- •The company owned two properties: 6 Rodham Terrace and 25 Little Corby Road.
- •Claimants believed the properties were distributed to them in 2008 but this was not formally done.
- •The Crown Estate Commissioners acquired the properties after the company's dissolution and disclaimer by the Treasury Solicitor.
- •Claimants sought vesting orders under s. 181 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and s. 44(ii)(c) of the Trustee Act 1925.
- •The Crown Estate Commissioners did not oppose the claim.
Legal Principles
Property vesting in Crown as bona vacantia upon company dissolution.
Companies Act 2006, s. 1012
Crown disclaimer of bona vacantia property leads to escheat.
Companies Act 2006, s. 1013
Escheat does not terminate subordinate interests in land.
Pennistone Holdings Ltd v Rock Ferry Waterfront Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1029
Vesting orders under s. 181 of the Law of Property Act 1925 require a subsisting legal right at the date of dissolution.
Lizzium Ltd v The Crown Estate Commissioners [2021] EWHC 941 (Ch)
Vesting orders under s. 44(ii)(c) of the Trustee Act 1925 require a trust to exist at the time of dissolution.
Trustee Act 1925, s. 44(ii)(c)
Proprietary estoppel requires encouragement/acquiescence, detrimental reliance, and unconscionability.
Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property (9th edn)
Remedy for proprietary estoppel aims to prevent unconscionable conduct, often by fulfilling the promise or providing a proportionate remedy.
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
Outcomes
Vesting orders granted in favour of the claimants.
Claimants established proprietary estoppel, creating a sufficient interest (trust) at the time of dissolution to justify a vesting order under s. 44(ii)(c) of the Trustee Act 1925, or alternatively under s. 181 of the Law of Property Act 1925.