Brightlingsea Haven Ltd & Anor v Morris & Ors

A proprietary estoppel may arise where purchasers acquire lodges in reliance on authorised promises that they will receive defined site interests and may use the lodges in specified ways. The absence of a written disposition under Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, section 2(1), does not prevent relief where the facts also support a constructive trust within section 2(5). Existing ownership of the superior leasehold is not, by itself, a bar. Illegality affecting a site licence or planning permission may influence the form of equitable relief, but is not necessarily an absolute bar to the underlying equity. For the statutory definition of a twin-unit caravan, mobility is assessed by whether the structure is physically capable of being towed or carried by road from one place to another, without regard to the particular site’s accessibility.

The claimants operated a caravan and lodge park. The defendants had bought lodges after representations by the claimants’ agents that they would receive leases or equivalent security and could use their lodges during the daytime in the seasonal closed period, although overnight occupation was prohibited. The claimants sought declarations and an injunction preventing daytime use. The defendants relied on proprietary estoppel and constructive trust principles, and also raised issues concerning the statutory status of the lodges, the protected-site regime, illegality, misrepresentation and harassment.

The court had to determine the parties’ contractual position, whether equitable relief was available despite statutory formalities and potential breaches of the site licence, whether the park was a protected site, and whether the lodges were caravans within the statutory definition.

1. Contractual position and promises. The defendants held quarterly tenancies from the first claimant. The evidence established promises that they would become tenants under leases, receive security of tenure for the relevant head-lease period and any extension or renewal, occupy their lodges during the daytime in the closed period but not overnight, and pay quarterly rent subject to reasonable variation. No binding promise that the head lease would be extended, or that rent increases would be modest, was established.
2. Estoppel and constructive trust. The promises, reliance and detriment fell within the principle stated in Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] QB 133 and Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129. Following Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162 and Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45, the court could recognise a constructive trust and give effect to the equity by requiring an appropriate site interest. The fact that the claimant already held its leasehold did not prevent that conclusion. The situation was not the failed joint-venture case considered in Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] 1 WLR 1752.
3. Illegality and remedy. Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 did not bar the claims because section 2(5) preserved constructive trusts. The possible consequences under the site licence, planning permission and head lease were relevant to the exercise of the court’s remedial discretion, but did not constitute an absolute bar. The court deferred the form of relief pending the outcome of planning and local-authority matters. The defendants’ previous overnight occupation did not bar relief on clean-hands grounds.
4. Other claims. The promises concerning future leases were not actionable misrepresentations of existing fact under section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The harassment claims failed because the conduct was pursued to secure compliance with statutory site-licence conditions, within section 1(3)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. Protected site and caravan status. The seasonal restrictions in the site licence and planning permission meant that the park was not a protected site under section 1(2)(b) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The lodges were twin-unit caravans. Small components such as ridge pieces, guttering, flues and flooring did not constitute additional sections; detachable verandas were not part of the structure. Width was measured by the walls, excluding roof overhangs. The lodges were physically capable of being moved by road, and their actual location and access difficulties were irrelevant to the mobility test.