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
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
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
Evidence Needed to Share Benefical Inerests The family home had been purchased during the marriage in the name of the husband only. The wife asserted that she had a beneficial interest in it. Held: The principles apply to any case where a beneficial interest in land is claimed by a person, whether spouse or stranger, … Continue reading Gissing v Gissing: HL 7 Jul 1970
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
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
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 . .
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
The Society appealed dismissal for limitation of its claim against the defendant firm of accountants arising from alleged fraud in approval of a solicitor’s accounts.
Held: The liability did not arise until the Society decided to make . .
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
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
Ormrod J agreed to an application to accelerate the decree absolute of divorce to preserve the court’s jurisdiction to hear a claim for ancillary relief. If a divorce were obtained in Hungary on the basis of the husband’s Hungarian nationality, it would have to be recognised, and the English court would have no jurisdiction under … Continue reading Torok v Torok: 1973
The court considered the way of distributing property purchased by an unmarried couple: ‘When such a relationship comes to an end, just as with many divorced couples, there are likely to be disputes about the distribution of shared property. How are such disputes to be decided? They cannot be decided in the same way as … Continue reading Walker v Hall: CA 1984
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
The court described the 1969 and 1970 Acts as ‘a reforming statute designed to facilitate the granting of ancillary relief in cases where marriages have been dissolved . . We regard the provisions of sections 2,3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1970 as designed to accord to the courts the widest possible powers … Continue reading Wachtel v Wachtel: CA 8 Feb 1973
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
Partners lived together, without being married, as secure joint tenants. They exercised the right to buy, contributing three quarters and one quarter of the price respectively. At the time they intended to marry. They did not discuss he shares, and no declaration of trust was made. One party sought an equal division on the sale. … Continue reading Springett v Defoe: CA 1992
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
Mr. Justice Ormrod ordered the husband to pay to his wife (i) a lump sum of pounds 10,000, or half the value of the former matrimonial home in Norwood, South London, whichever be the less: (ii) a periodical payment of pounds 1,500 per annum, less tax: and (iii) a further payment of pounds 500 per … Continue reading Wachtel v Wachtel: FD 3 Oct 1972
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
The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall  1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s application to set aside a financial order in divorce proceedings on the … Continue reading Gohil v Gohil: SC 14 Oct 2015
H has no right to sexual intercourse with W – rape The defendant appealed against his conviction for having raped his wife, saying that intercourse with his wife was necessarily lawful, and therefore outside the statutory definition of rape. Due to the matrimonial difficulties, the wife had left their matrimonial house and gone to her … Continue reading Regina v R: HL 23 Oct 1991
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
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
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
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
H and W separated and in 1976, without any pressure H and at the instigation of W, signed a deed of separation negotiated through solicitors. H agreed to purchase a house for W, to confer on her capital benefits worth approximately andpound;100,000, to pay her andpound;16,000 a year and to make periodical payments for the … Continue reading Edgar v Edgar: CA 23 Jul 1980
The parties had divorced in Nigeria, but the former wife now sought relief in the UK under section 10 of the 194 Act. The wife said that she lived here, but the order made in Nigeria was severely detrimental requiring her either to live here in poverty or to return to Nigeria against her wishes. … Continue reading Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje: SC 10 Mar 2010
W petitioned for divorce alleging that he ‘has behaved in such a way that [she] cannot reasonably be expected to live with [him]’. H defended, and the petition was rejected as inadequate in the behaviour alleged. She said that the section should be . .
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .