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

COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST: Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555

Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Slug : 2012EWCACiv555
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 8, 2012, 08:29 AM
Article ID : 98779

(Court of Appeal; Thorpe, Etherton, Lewison LJJ; 29 March 2012)

The couple were in a relationship for 19 years and had a 20-year-old son. The woman was still married to her husband for 12 years during the new relationship. The couple moved to Hastings to run a guesthouse the man had bought with his savings and when they separated the woman claimed to have acquired a beneficial interest in the guesthouse or that she and the man had been in partnership.

The claim of a common intention constructive trust was dismissed and the judge found that the man bought the property as an investment. There was no intention at the time of purchase that the woman should have an interest and no evidence that the intention changed or that the woman had taken steps to change her own position in reliance on any assertion that she should have an interest. The judge had not been plainly wrong in his conclusion and the woman's appeal was dismissed.

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