The deceased and her partner did not marry but owned three properties together. They could not agree on the interpretation of the documents setting out their interests, and whether they had been varied.
Held: The court set out the various interests it found in the properties according to its findings on the facts.
Peter Smith J
[2007] EWHC 951 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Slingsby’s Case 1587
Where two inconsistent provisions in a deed cannot be reconciled, the earlier provision prevails over the later. . .
Cited – Joyce v Barker Bros (Builders) Ltd 1980
The rule that where in a deed there are two contradictory provisions, the earlier provision prevails over the later is ‘an absolutely last resort in construction’. . .
Cited – Martin v Martin 1987
A property was bought by parties as ‘beneficial joint tenants in equal shares’.
Held: The words ‘in equal shares’ had the effect of severing any joint tenancy created by the first words of the phrase. The law would apply the first of two . .
Cited – Tinker v Tinker CA 1970
The husband bought a business in Cornwall and a house for his family. At first he intended to buy the house in his own name, but was advised that if the venture failed, the house could be taken by his creditors as part of his business assets. It was . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Cited – Neville and Another v Wilson and Others CA 4-Apr-1996
A parole agreement by all the shareholders in a company, to liquidate it, created a constructive trust. That a specifically enforceable agreement to assign an interest in property, created an equitable interest in the assignee, was unquestionably . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.251540