Pascoe v Turner, [1978] EWCA Civ 2
Citation:Pascoe v Turner, [1978] EWCA Civ 2
Rule of thumb:If a person tells someone that if they do a property up then they can keep it, is this a valid contract? In some circumstances this can be deemed to be a valid contract, though it may be hard to prove this was actually said.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that Pascoe was the mistress of Turner, and a Turner told Pascoe that if she did the house up, then she could keep it. Pascoe put in significant expense in doing the house up from top to bottom. Although this promise was never in writing, the fact that she acted upon it, meant that she became the owner, and Turner was asked to execute a conveyance to pass it over to her. Even although conveyances required formal execution to be valid this was deemed to be held in trust for the pursuer which did not require a formal execution.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘We take the view that the equity cannot here be satisfied without granting a remedy which assures to the respondent security of tenure, quiet enjoyment, and freedom of action in respect of repairs and improvements without interference from the appellant. The history of the conduct of the appellant since 9th April 1976 in relation to these proceedings leads to an irresistible inference that he is determined to pursue his purpose of evicting her from the house by any legal means at his disposal with a ruthless disregard of the obligations binding upon conscience. The court must grant a remedy effective to protect her against the future manifestations of his ruthlessness. It was conceded that if she is granted a licence, such a licence cannot be registered as a land charge, so that she may find herself ousted by a purchaser for value without notice. If she has in the future to do further and more expensive repairs she may only be able to finance them by a loan, but as a licensee she cannot charge the house. The appellant as legal owner may well find excuses for entry in order to do what he may plausibly represent as necessary works and so contrive to derogate from her enjoyment of the licence in ways that make it difficult or impossible for the court to give her effective protection. Weighing such considerations this court concludes that the equity to which the facts in this case give rise can only be satisfied by compelling the appellant to give effect to his promise and her expectations. He has so acted that he must now perfect the gift’, Orr LJ
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.