Tee v Tee, John Arthur Hillman Co: CA 22 Mar 1999

The wife and her second husband occupied a property in the joint names of herself and of her first husband, who, following their divorce, had applied under the Act of 1973 for a lump sum order reflective of his equal beneficial interest in it to be made against her. Following her remarriage the wife countered with an application under TOLATA for the interest of her first husband in the property to be transferred to herself against a small payment to be made by her to him reflective of the value of what she contended to be only his minor beneficial interest in it. Following a direction that her application under TOLATA be considered at a preliminary stage, a district judge devoted eight days to the enquiry under TOLATA and A further day with the husband’s application under the Act of 1973, concluding that andpound;230,000 should be paid to the first husband in respect of his interest in the property, whether by the wife or, in default, out of the proceeds of its sale.
Held: Parties to a marriage seeking a sale of jointly owned property should proceed under family law not the general civil powers. Where the parties had divorced, and one party had remarried, the procedure remained the same, particularly when, as in this case, the other party had already made and application under the Matrimonial Causes Act. The court took the opportunity to deplore the expensive protracted and bitter nature of the proceedings.
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Judge
Gazette 27-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1056, [1999] 2 FLR 61
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 24A, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14, Married Women’s Property Act 1882 18
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoTee v Tee CA 1974
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoTee-Hillman v Tee and others CA 24-Sep-2002
. .
CitedSmith v Smith CA 2-Dec-2009
The married couple owned a property as tenants in common. The husband had moved out and, anticipating divorce proceedings, sought an order for the sale of the house citing his inability to sustain the very considerable mortgage payments. The wife . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.145971