Property was acquired by joint owners to provide accommodation for both joint owners. That purpose would be defeated if one of those acquiring the property were to insist on a sale while that purpose was still subsisting. The value of a joint interest in a house when calculating benefits entitlement was the market value of that half share, not one half of the value of the whole. There was ‘nothing obscure or abstruse in the conclusion that the amount of capital which the applicant’s joint possession of that dwelling house represents may fall, for the time being, to be quantified in a nominal amount.’ In this case the value was nil.
Judges:
Hobhouse LJ
Citations:
Ind Summary 10-Apr-1995, Gazette 15-Mar-1995, Times 17-Feb-1995
Statutes:
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wilkinson v Chief Adjudication Officer CA 24-Mar-2000
The claimant owned a half share in a property. It was said that this brought her disposable capital above the limit to make a claim. She had inherited it, but had transferred it to her brother in satisfaction of her mother’s wishes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.79031
