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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Ashby v Kilduff [2010] EWHC 2034 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : 2010EWHC2034
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 22, 2010, 09:55 AM
Article ID : 91431

(Chancery Division; Bernard Livesey QC sitting as a deputy judge of the HC; 30 July 2010)

A cohabiting same-sex couple (one an MP, the other a doctor) each bought a flat in the same building. The couple then renovated flats to create single living space with two separate titles.

After the MP lost libel proceedings in respect of his relationship with the doctor, he transferred his flat to the doctor to ensure it did not have to be sold. When relationship ended some years later, the MP claimed the doctor held the property by way of a constructive/resulting trust for him. The doctor argued that the MP sold him the whole of his legal and beneficial interest in the property.

Held that the property was held by the MP and the doctor as legal and beneficial joint tenants: that the property was held subject to a trust that the MP was responsible for all outgoings and entitled to the income from the property during his lifetime. The doctor  was entitled to sever the beneficial joint tenancy and he did so in June 2009, the effect of this was they held the legal interest in the property as legal joint tenants but the beneficial interest as tenants in common but subject to the same trust as before, which will not have been affected by the Notice of Severance.

__________________________________________________________________

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