Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
A rare order for a child in utero
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow Harvard Law School; Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn 2023, Kettering NHS Trust applied for an anticipatory declaration for a child...
Stranded spouses: an overview
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4PB, author of A Practical Guide to Stranded Spouses in Family Law ProceedingsThis article provides an overview of the issues that often arise in cases...
Now is the time to reassess presumption f parental involvement in cases involving domestic abuse
Lea Levine, Paralegal at Stewarts and former independent domestic violence advisorIn this article, paralegal and former independent domestic violence advisor (“IDVA”) Lea Levine...
Hadkinson orders – applicability in financial remedy proceedings
Hassan Sarwar, Cornwall Street BarristersHassan Sarwar considers the development and usage of Hadkinson Orders in financial remedy proceedings.  The article provides a helpful overview of a...
View all articles
Authors

Co-owners, the transfer, the intent and Stack

Oct 27, 2018, 06:43 AM
Title : Co-owners, the transfer, the intent and Stack
Slug : co-owners-the-transfer-the-intent-and-stack-0
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Jul 19, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88869

Alex Ralton, Barrister, Albion Chambers, Bristol, and Deputy District Judge. Has Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] FLR (forthcoming) altered the law relating to co-ownership as it was understood to be? In the case of joint legal owners who hold on express trust for themselves as tenants in common in expressly declared shares, and in the case of joint legal owners who hold on trust for themselves as beneficial joint tenants, Stack v Dowden has not changed anything. There is no change to the position that the starting point in a case involving joint legal owners who do not expressly declare trusts is equal shares.

Where there might be a change, however, is in the further broadening of the Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, [2004] 2 FLR 669 survey of the parties' dealings with each other in order to determine a common intention. In this article the author considers Baroness Hale's suggestions of factors that may be relevant to this issue. Going further, the author asks whether the area of occupation rents is perhaps one place where the case has nudged the law in favour of cohabitants.

Breaking down the key points in issue in Stack v Dowden and summarising their Lordships' conclusions, this article clarifies for the practitioner of the effect of the case on other authorities and for practice generally. To read it in full, see August [2007] Fam Law.

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