Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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