Heath v Heath & Anor

Specific performance is discretionary. A mistake which does not avoid a contract may nevertheless justify refusing specific performance where it induced the agreement and was caused by the conduct of the party seeking enforcement. Prolonged and unexplained delay may independently bar the remedy, particularly where delay causes evidential prejudice or suggests abandonment. An agreement which is not specifically enforceable may still sever a beneficial joint tenancy if it shows an immediate intention to treat the parties’ interests as separate.

The claimant, as administratrix of the deceased’s estate, sought specific performance of a written 1997 agreement under which the first defendant had agreed to sell her half share in the former matrimonial home to the deceased. The first defendant relied on undue influence, uncertainty, mistake and delay, and claimed ownership by survivorship. The parties also made competing claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

The central issues were whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, whether equitable relief should be refused because of mistake or delay, and what beneficial interests remained in the property.

1. Specific performance refused. The agreement was not invalid for undue influence, incompleteness, uncertainty or mistake. The reference to the deceased’s son as beneficiary could be construed, and the mortgage provision could be treated as an obligation to procure or use reasonable endeavours to procure the first defendant’s release from the mortgage covenants. Alternatively, that provision was machinery for completion.
2. The mistake nevertheless justified refusing equitable relief. Following Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679, mistake was no longer a separate vitiating equitable doctrine. It remained a relevant factor in the discretionary decision whether to grant specific performance, especially where the mistake was induced by the words or conduct of the person seeking enforcement. The deceased’s representation that the son was already the beneficiary of his estate materially induced the agreement.
3. Delay provided an additional and independent reason to refuse relief. The deceased took no effective enforcement steps for many years, despite the first defendant’s requests concerning payment and mortgage release. His death deprived the court of his first-hand evidence and prejudiced the first defendant. The court applied the established principle, stated in P & O Nedlloyd B.V. v Arab Metals Co [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 401, that a claimant seeking specific performance must proceed promptly. The position of a purchaser in undisputed possession, considered in Williams v Greatrex [1957] 1 WLR 31, did not apply.
4. The agreement nevertheless evidenced severance of the beneficial joint tenancy. The property was therefore held on trust for the claimant and the first defendant in equal shares. No order for sale was made while the claimant wished to occupy the property. She was required to pay the outgoings and maintain it. The first defendant was excluded from occupation, and no occupation rent was ordered.
5. No order for family provision was made, having regard to the beneficial ownership findings and the modest value of the estate.