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...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from