Vimalrai Patel v Mayur Patel
[2024] EWHC 1412 (Comm)
Kenneth Thomas v Deborah Porter
28 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 983 (KB)
High Court
A man paid off his ex-partner's mortgage. He sued for a share of the house, and alternatively for his money back as a loan. The judge ruled only on the house, saying it was a gift. The appeals court agreed the judge should have considered the loan too, but it wouldn't have changed anything because the judge's decision was that the money was a gift.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Kenneth Thomas (Appellant) appealed the rejection of his claim against Ms. Deborah Porter (Respondent) for a declaration of trust over a property.
- •The Appellant paid off the Respondent's mortgage with £40,373.01 from the sale of his home and an insurance settlement.
- •The Appellant's initial claim was for a declaration of trust, with an alternative claim for loan repayment or subrogation added in the Reply.
- •The trial judge excluded the loan claim from the Reply, finding it inadequately particularized and prejudicial to the Respondent.
- •The appeal focused on whether the judge's exclusion of the loan claim was procedurally unfair and led to an unjust outcome.
- •The judge found the payment was a gift, with any repayment promises representing moral, not legal, obligations.
Legal Principles
CPR PD 16 para 9.2: Requirements for claims contradicting earlier pleadings.
Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 16
Case management decisions are reviewed only if plainly wrong, not merely open to different views.
Royal and Sun v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ 1964
An appellate court will interfere with a discretionary decision only if there was misdirection in law, procedural unfairness, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision.
Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB)
Absent a presumption of advancement, payment of money creates a prima facie obligation to repay; the onus is on the recipient to prove it was a gift.
Chitty on Contracts 34th Ed. at para. 41-268; Seldon v Davidson [1968] 1 WLR 1083; Chapman v Jaume [2012] 2 FLR 830
Appellate courts should not interfere with trial judge's findings of fact unless compelled to do so.
Fage (UK) v Charbani [2014] EWCA Civ 4
An appeal court can only interfere if a procedural irregularity was serious and caused an unjust decision.
Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-Macdonald [2000] 1 WLR 1311
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the judge erred in excluding the loan claim, this error did not affect the outcome. The judge's findings on the trust claim, which established the payment as a gift with only moral obligations for repayment, were sufficient to defeat both the trust and loan claims.