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

PROPERTY: Morris v Morris [2008] EWCA Civ 257

Sep 29, 2018, 17:07 PM
Slug : morris-v-morris-2008-ewca-civ-257
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 22, 2008, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 86897

(Court of Appeal; 22 February 2008; Pill and May LJJ and Sir Peter Gibson)

The husband had run a farming business in partnership with his mother; the mother owned the property, and leased it to the farming business. After the wife brought divorce proceedings, the husband's mother changed her will, leaving the property to the husband's children by a previous marriage, rather than to the husband, in an attempt to minimise the wife's recovery in the divorce proceedings. The wife, who had worked for many years without pay to assist the farming business, and had operated a riding school from the farm, brought an action against the estate of the husband's mother, arguing that she had a beneficial interest in the farm. The judge found that although there had been no agreement or arrangement to share the beneficial interest, there was a common intention constructive trust based on conduct, and proprietary estoppel, and he declared that the wife had a 25% interest in the property.

The judge had been beguiled into believing that he could produce what he regarded as a reasonable or fair result in the wife's favour; he did not have that luxury. There had been insufficient evidence to establish either a common intention constructive trust based on conduct, to be found only in exceptional circumstances, or proprietary estoppel. The court was to be cautious before finding that the activities of a wife or cohabitant could be explained on the basis that she believed she was acquiring an interest in land.

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