Jones v Padavatton

Arrangements between close relatives are presumed, as a matter of fact rather than law, to depend on mutual trust and affection instead of creating legal relations. The presumption is rebuttable. Intention is assessed objectively from what the parties said and wrote, viewed in the surrounding circumstances.

Consideration alone does not establish contractual intention. Where a parent promises support for a course of study, and the parties leave its duration and important incidents flexible, the arrangement may remain an unenforceable family arrangement. A later arrangement permitting occupation of the parent’s house does not confer an indefinite contractual right to remain without evidence that the parent intended to surrender the right to possession.

A mother persuaded her adult daughter to leave secure employment and accommodation in Washington and study for the Bar in England. The mother promised maintenance of 200 dollars a month. The daughter moved to England and received £42 monthly, representing 200 West Indian dollars.

The mother later bought a London house. The daughter was to occupy part of it, manage furnished lettings and obtain maintenance from the rents. No written agreement defined the accommodation, distribution of rents or duration of the arrangement.

The mother subsequently terminated the daughter’s occupation and claimed possession. The county court dismissed that claim, upheld the daughter’s counterclaim and referred its amount to the registrar. The mother appealed. The principal issues were whether the arrangements were intended to create legal relations and, if so, whether their terms were sufficiently certain.

1. The appeal was allowed unanimously, although the members of the court differed over the original maintenance arrangement. Judgment was entered for the mother for possession on or before 1 March 1969. The existing reference concerning the amount of the daughter’s counterclaim remained in place.

2. Danckwerts and Fenton Atkinson LJJ held that neither the original maintenance arrangement nor the later housing arrangement was intended to create legally enforceable obligations. Arrangements between close relatives ordinarily rest upon mutual trust and affection. The resulting presumption against contractual intention is one of fact and may be rebutted. Consideration supplied by the relative relying on the promise does not by itself establish an intention to create legal relations.

3. The majority regarded the arrangements as flexible family provision. Important matters had been left unresolved, including the duration of the studies, the accommodation available in the house, the amount obtainable from rents and the allocation of outgoings. The purchase of the house adapted the mother’s financial assistance to changed circumstances; it was not a distinct contractual transaction. The daughter therefore had no contractual answer to the owner’s claim for possession.

4. Salmon LJ reached the same disposition by a different route. Applying an objective assessment of the parties’ words and conduct in their circumstances, he considered the original promise contractual because the daughter had surrendered substantial employment and other advantages in reliance upon it. Its duration was a reasonable time, which could not exceed five years on the facts, and that period had expired.

5. Salmon LJ nevertheless held that the housing arrangement was vague, lacked contractual intention and gave the daughter only a licence terminable by the mother. There was no evidence that the mother had bargained away her right to dispose of the house or recover possession. Fenton Atkinson LJ also considered the housing terms too vague and uncertain, although his primary conclusion was that no contract had been intended.

1. Court of Appeal: The mother’s appeal was allowed. The judgment below was varied by entering judgment for possession on or before 1 March 1969. The reference concerning the amount of the counterclaim remained standing. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

2. Clerkenwell County Court: The county court dismissed the mother’s possession claim, gave judgment for the daughter on her counterclaim and referred the amount to the registrar.