Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cobb J, 14 June 2021)Parental Responsibility – Circumcision – 21-month-old Muslim child – Raised in non-Muslim household of extended family – Mother sought...
R (Care Proceedings Joinder of Foster Carers) [2021] EWCA Civ 875
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Baker, Carr, Lewis LJJ, 15 June 2021)Practice and Procedure – Care proceedings – Foster carers joined as party to care proceedings – AppealThe...
The family court’s role in micro managing ‘trivial’ disputes
Sarah Higgins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe decision in Re (B) (a child) (Unnecessary Private Law Applications) [2020] EWFC B44 dealt with the family court’s role in micro...
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY:Shirt v Shirt [2012] EWCA Civ 1029

Sep 29, 2018, 18:21 PM
Slug : 2012ewcaciv1029
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 10, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 99691

(Court of Appeal, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, McFarlane, Lewison LJJ, 27 March 2012) 

The son claimed ownership of a farm pursuant to proprietary estoppel or constructive trust. The father owned the farm but had run it with the son as a partnership. The son based his case on assertions by the father that the farm ‘would come to him' and that he relied on those assertions by taking on tasks in excess of that expected of an employee and for little money.

The judge rejected the son's claims and the son appealed. The judge's conclusion was one that had been open to him and his reasoning was a proper basis for that conclusion.

The judge gave an oral reserved judgment after the conclusion of trial. Upon receiving the transcript he made a number of amplifications. There was nothing objectionable in a judge making his reasoning clearer and more full but making new or contradictory points was another matter. In this case no injustice had been caused. Appeal dismissed.

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