Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4 (29 November 1968)

A mother promised her daughter maintenance to study for the Bar in England, later purchasing a house for her to live in. When the relationship broke down, the mother sought possession. The Court of Appeal held there was no legally binding contract, only a family arrangement not intended to create legal relations.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mrs Jones, was a mother residing in Trinidad. Her daughter, the defendant Mrs Padavatton, lived in Washington D.C. working at the Indian Embassy with a good salary and pension rights. In 1962, the mother persuaded her daughter to give up her position and move to England to study for the Bar, promising to provide maintenance of 200 dollars per month. A misunderstanding arose as the mother meant West Indian dollars (£42 per month) while the daughter understood US dollars (£70 per month). The daughter accepted £42 without protest.

In 1964, the mother purchased a house at 181 Highbury Quadrant for £6,000, intending that the daughter could live there and collect rents from tenants to cover her maintenance. The arrangement lacked any written agreement and many material terms remained undefined. The daughter married Mr Padavatton in January 1965 and continued occupying the property.

By 1967, the mother had received no money from the rents and no proper accounts. She served notice to quit and brought proceedings for possession of the house.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether the arrangements between mother and daughter were intended to create legally binding contracts, or were merely family arrangements not intended to have legal consequences.

Secondary Issue

If the arrangements were intended to be binding, whether they were sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the mother’s appeal, holding that the arrangements were family arrangements not intended to create legal relations.

Lord Justice Danckwerts

His Lordship applied the principles from Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571, noting that while family members can enter into legally binding contracts, there is a presumption against such intention in family affairs. He found this case compelling for application of that principle, observing the arrangements were intended to be adaptable to circumstances rather than rigid contractual obligations.

Lord Justice Salmon

His Lordship considered that, applying an objective test, the 1962 arrangement could have constituted a binding contract given the daughter’s significant sacrifice in leaving Washington. However, he held that any such contract would only last for a reasonable time, which could not exceed five years. By November 1968, any contractual rights had expired. Regarding the 1964 house arrangement, he found no evidence the mother intended to bargain away her property rights, and the arrangements were too vague to have contractual effect.

Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson

His Lordship emphasised that the giving of consideration does not determine whether parties intended to create legal relations. He found the subsequent conduct of the parties most instructive. The daughter accepted £42 without protest despite believing she was promised £70. Many material matters regarding the house were left open. When cross-examined, the daughter stated:

I didn’t open the door because a normal mother doesn’t sue her daughter in court. Anybody with normal feelings would feel upset by what was happening.

His Lordship found this strongly indicated neither party contemplated legal enforcement of what was a purely family arrangement.

Implications

This case reinforces the principle established in Balfour v Balfour that domestic and family arrangements carry a presumption against intention to create legal relations. Even where consideration is clearly provided, this does not automatically establish contractual intention. The court will examine the nature of the relationship, the informality of arrangements, the lack of precise terms, and subsequent conduct to determine the parties’ true intentions. The case demonstrates that courts will scrutinise family arrangements closely and will not readily find binding contracts where matters of significance are left vague and undefined.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. Judgment entered for the plaintiff mother for possession of the premises at 181 Highbury Quadrant, London N.5, to be given up on or before 1st March 1969. The counterclaim regarding quantum was referred to the Registrar.

Source: Jones v Padavatton [1968] EWCA Civ 4 (29 November 1968)