The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged. Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside … Continue reading Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another: ChD 25 Feb 2000
One of two joint tenants was able to give a notice to quit a joint periodic tenancy, without first referring to the co-tenant. If this was inappropriate, then it was for Parliament to change the law. Such a notice was not the exercise of a ‘function’ relating to the land within the Act, and accordingly … Continue reading Notting Hill Housing Trust v Brackley and Another: CA 24 Apr 2001
The land owner appealed from an order of the court as to land held under a co-ownership arrangement between three people. The order was for the sale of the property with the first option being given for the purchase of the property. It was said that the court had no jurisdiction to make such an … Continue reading Bagum v Hafiz and Another: CA 22 Jul 2015
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when a conveyance into joint names indicates only that each party … Continue reading Stack v Dowden: HL 25 Apr 2007
Renewed application for permission to appeal against order under the 1996 Act. . .
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
The unmarried parties had sought an order from the court as to their respective interests in their former family home.
Held:The judge had been incorrect to make his decsion based on the principles of equitable accounting. He should have used . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts