Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

COSTS: Walsh v Singh (Costs) [2010] EWHC 1167 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:30 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC1167
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 13, 2010, 10:55 AM
Article ID : 91297

(Chancery Division; HHJ Purle QC sitting as a judge of the High Court; 19 March 2010)

A property case involving a cohabiting couple. The man and woman had cohabited for significant period and at one stage were engaged. The issue was whether the woman had a beneficial interest in the property. The woman had made no financial contribution to the property's purchase price  but claimed to have made a contribution to the renovation works and to the man's business. The woman had made two loans (£7,500 and £25,000) and the man had subsequently paid the woman £35,000 following separation as ‘maintenance'. There was never any representation to the woman that she would have a share of the property.

The man had offered to pay the woman £85,000 with costs up to the date of acceptance.  The this offer was better than the woman achieved, bringing CPR 36.14(1)(a) into play.  However, in this case it would be unjust to require the woman to pay the costs and interest from date of the man's offer. The significant counterclaims by the man had failed. Further his conduct had been disgraceful in certain important respects, spyware had been used and the woman was portrayed as mentally unstable. No order as to costs.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from