Jones v Padavatton
Family arrangements between parent and child are presumed not to be legally binding unless the presumption is rebutted.
Facts
Mrs Jones lived in Trinidad. Her daughter, Mrs Padavatton, had a well paid job at the Indian Embassy in Washington. Mrs Jones persuaded her daughter to give up the job and go to England to study for the Bar, promising to pay her a monthly allowance. Later, to replace the allowance, Mrs Jones bought a house in London where the daughter could live and let out rooms to cover her expenses. Some years later, the daughter had still not passed the Bar exams and the relationship broke down. Mrs Jones sued to recover possession of the house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Jones was entitled to possession. The majority held that the arrangements, both the original allowance and the later one about the house, were family arrangements that the parties did not intend to be legally binding. Salmon LJ thought that the original agreement was a binding contract, but only for a reasonable time for the daughter to qualify, which had passed. The case shows that the presumption against legal relations in family agreements extends to arrangements between parents and children, even where one party has given up something significant.
Related cases on intention to create legal relations
- Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394, [2013] 3 All ER 607
- Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737
- Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
- Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)
- Edwards v Skyways Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 349
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1
- Jones v Vernon's Pools Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 626
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp Bhd [1989] 1 WLR 379
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
