Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

One man’s inference is another man’s imputation: logic theory and legal practice in TOLATA 1996 claims

Sep 29, 2018, 19:32 PM
Beneficial ownership, Co-owned property, Common intention, Imputation, Inference, Intention, Joint ownership, Logic, Property, beneficial interest, Tenancies, joint TOLATA proceedings
This article will consider the meaning, interplay and limits of the concepts of inference and imputation.
Slug : one-man-s-inference-is-another-man-s-imputation-logic-theory-and-legal-practice-in-tolata-1996-claims
Meta Title : One man’s inference is another man’s imputation: logic theory and legal practice in TOLATA 1996 claims
Meta Keywords : Beneficial ownership, Co-owned property, Common intention, Imputation, Inference, Intention, Joint ownership, Logic, Property, beneficial interest, Tenancies, joint TOLATA proceedings
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 31, 2016, 05:16 AM
Article ID : 113267
‘From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagra without having seen or heard of one or the other.’ (Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes)

In domestic cases involving a dispute about the fact and/or extent of a party’s beneficial interest in property, the search is primarily to ascertain the parties’ intentions, whether expressed or inferred (Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2012] 1 FLR 45, at para [31]). If a property’s legal title is held in two parties’ joint names (A and B), the law presumes that both parties (A and B) hold the beneficial interest under a joint tenancy. If legal title is in a party’s sole name (A), the presumption is that A is the sole beneficial owner. The other party (B) must satisfy the court that he has some beneficial interest in the property before seeking a quantification of that interest. In the latter ‘sole name’ case, and absent a written declaration of trust, the court relies principally on oral agreements or the parties’ conduct in relation to the property to infer a common intention constructive trust in favour of B. If the court is able to infer such an agreement but is unable also to infer the proportions in which the beneficial interest is to be held (its quantification), it is permissible for the court to impute, ie to attribute to the parties an intention as to how the beneficial interest is held: thereby to quantify and to declare those beneficial interests.

This article will consider the meaning, interplay and limits of the concepts of inference and imputation. These two terms have caused much consternation. What can you infer? What can’t you impute? How does the judge do either or none? The Court of Appeal has sought in recent judgments to shed some light on this dark art.

The full version of this article appears in the October 2016 issue of Family Law. 

Online subscribers can access the article here

For details on how you can subscribe to Family Law or any other titles, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 917 5100, or email: editor@jordanpublishing.co.uk

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
logic
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Load more comments
Comment by from