Daniel Family Homes Limited & Anor v Jeffrey Gold & Anor

An appellate court should interfere with a trial judge’s factual findings only where the conclusion was plainly wrong or no reasonable judge could have reached it. A judge need not mention every piece of evidence, and an appeal court should avoid analysing a judgment narrowly.

Where a licence to occupy property has been determined and the occupier becomes a trespasser, the freehold owner may recover damages representing market rent without proving actual loss. An informal arrangement linking rent-free occupation with interest-free loans may be determined on reasonable notice. On termination, possession becomes recoverable, the loans become repayable and commercial interest may accrue.

Daniel Family Homes Ltd and Terry Daniel appealed, and Jeffrey and Patricia Gold cross-appealed, against findings and orders made by HHJ Melissa Clarke on 10 December 2024 in possession and related financial proceedings in the County Court.

The dispute concerned occupation of a property, alleged beneficial ownership, loans, rent, trespass damages, vehicle storage charges, interest and costs. The trial judge rejected the alleged beneficial interest and trust, found that occupation had been rent-free, recognised a £121,000 loan, rejected the vehicle-storage claim and made a possession order, but awarded no damages for trespass.

The central issues were whether the factual findings were plainly wrong, whether damages were payable after the licence ended, and whether possession and interest were conditional on repayment of the loans.

1. Appeal approach. The court applied the principles summarised in Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464. An appellate court must show extreme caution before interfering with findings based on oral and documentary evidence. It is insufficient that the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion.
2. Rent and factual findings. DFH and Mr Daniel failed to show that the judge was plainly wrong in finding that the Golds’ occupation had been rent-free and that no rent was to accrue for set-off against the loans. The related finding that the loans were interest-free was also upheld.
3. Trespass damages and possession. Once the notice to quit expired on 2 June 2021, the Golds were trespassers. Under Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet [1979] 1 WLR 285, DFH was entitled to damages representing market rent without proof of loss. The court assessed damages at no less than £2,000 per month until judgment and thereafter at the agreed rate of £100 per day.
4. The informal quid pro quo could be determined by either party on reasonable notice. If determined, DFH became entitled to possession, the loans became repayable and commercial interest accrued. If the arrangement were contractual, that term had to be implied to give it business efficacy. The Golds’ possession cross-appeal therefore failed, but their interest cross-appeal succeeded to the limited extent that interest became payable from 2 June 2021.
5. Other grounds. The finding that £121,000 had been advanced as a loan was supported by the transfer request, bank statement and subsequent repayment evidence. The vehicle-storage ground failed: although consideration may consist of a legal benefit and need not be financial expenditure, there was no cogent evidence of any real benefit to the Golds. The beneficial-interest and trust findings were not plainly wrong.
6. The costs challenge failed provisionally. The trial judge had a broad discretion and no clear error of principle was shown.

The appeal was allowed only on trespass damages and the cross-appeal only on interest from 2 June 2021. All other grounds were dismissed.

• Chancery Appeals (ChD): Appeal and cross-appeal from the order of HHJ Melissa Clarke dated 10 December 2024. The appeal succeeded only in relation to damages for trespass. The cross-appeal succeeded only to the extent that interest became payable from 2 June 2021.
• County Court: The trial judge rejected the alleged beneficial interest and trust, found rent-free occupation and a £121,000 loan, made a possession order, rejected the vehicle-storage claim and awarded no trespass damages.