Click the case name for better results:

Van Laethem v Brooker and Another: ChD 12 Jul 2005

The claimant asserted an interest in several properties by virtue of a common intention constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel. The parties had been engaged to be married. Held: ‘A [constructive] trust arises in connection with the acquisition by one party of a legal title to property whenever that party has so conducted himself that … Continue reading Van Laethem v Brooker and Another: ChD 12 Jul 2005

Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances: CA 1973

The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not meet the limit. Held: Time limits in all statutory tribunals are jurisdictional in nature, … Continue reading Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances: CA 1973

Grant v Edwards and Edwards: CA 24 Mar 1986

A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names was because she was involved in divorce proceedings and that, if the property … Continue reading Grant v Edwards and Edwards: CA 24 Mar 1986

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013

Yaxley v Gotts and Another: CA 24 Jun 1999

Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name of the first defendant, the second … Continue reading Yaxley v Gotts and Another: CA 24 Jun 1999

Smith v Smith: CA 1970

The husband had deserted the wife and gone abroad to work; the sole asset was the matrimonial home which was in joint names, and which constituted a post-nuptial settlement. The wife applied for variation of the settlement, whereby, on obtaining the . .

Acts

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

G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

The court considered the argument that a wife’s maintenance pending suit should be limited to her reasonable needs: ‘I do not accept that argument for the following reasons. The purpose of the 1970 Act was to change statutory provisions that were outdated and inadequate and to make a new start. Although the word ‘maintenance’ was … Continue reading G v G (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs): FD 2003

Wing v Eades: LRA 13 Dec 2013

LRA Beneficial Interests, Trusts and Restrictions : Matrimonial and Similar Disputes – Restriction – claim to beneficial interest in house in sole name of respondent-whether common intention express or to be inferred – whether applicant entitled to an interest by reason of s.37 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 and s.2 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) … Continue reading Wing v Eades: LRA 13 Dec 2013

McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

Appeals were made against orders for periodical payments made against high earning husbands. The argument was that if the case of White had decided that capital should be distributed equally, the same should apply also to income. Held: The distinction between capital and income awards is no longer conclusive, having arisen in part from historical … Continue reading McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour: CA 7 Jul 2004

G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

The family assets were in the region of andpound;8.5M. The wife sought a half share. The husband proposed that she should have 40%. The husband had built the family fortune through exceptional hard work and astute business acumen in the field of substantial development and construction projects. The court considered how capital and income could … Continue reading G v G (Financial Provision Equal Division): FD 2 Jul 2002

Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

The parties contested ancillary relief where there had been only a short marriage, but where here were considerable family assets available for division. The wife sought to rely upn the husband’s behaviour to counter any argument as to the shortness of the marriage. The husband answered to say that she had declared that she would … Continue reading Miller v Miller; M v M (Short Marriage: Clean Break): CA 29 Jul 2005

Pettitt v Pettitt: HL 23 Apr 1969

A husband and wife disputed ownership of the matrimonial home in the context of the presumption of advancement.Lord Reid said: ‘These considerations have largely lost their force under present conditions, and, unless the law has lost its flexibility so that the courts can no longer adapt it to changing conditions the strength of the presumption … Continue reading Pettitt v Pettitt: HL 23 Apr 1969

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset: HL 29 Mar 1990

The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest in it as the matrimonial home. She said there had been a common understanding or … Continue reading Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset: HL 29 Mar 1990

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital. Held: The 1973 Act gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006