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: Smith v Bottomley [2013] EWCA Civ 953

Sep 29, 2018, 21:12 PM
Slug : property-smith-v-bottomley-2013-ewca-civ-953
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 27, 2013, 09:40 AM
Article ID : 103401

(Court of Appeal, Lloyd, Jackson LJJ, Sales J, 29 July 2013)

The unmarried couple were in a relationship since 1990. The woman worked for the man's company and they cohabited for a period. They had one child together and were engaged.

In 2002, the man promised to marry the wife and they purchased a property in joint names, conveyed as tenants in common and accompanied by a formal declaration of trust. The man provided £15,000 towards the purchase price and the balance was met by way of a mortgage in respect of which he agreed to bear sole responsibility. The woman gave up her rented accommodation with the intention that they would live together as a family in the new property. Other properties were owned by the man and his company but at this stage of the relationship he assured the woman that although the properties were not held jointly in their names, all of their assets were equally owned by them.

When the couple separated the woman sought a declaration and quantification of her beneficial interest in the other properties owned by the man and/or the company on the basis of a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. At first instance the judge found the woman was entitled to a half share of one of the properties and that she had been underpaid by £21,000 in relation to her share in a second property. The man appealed.

In respect of the underpayment ordered to be made good by the husband no pleaded case in relation to that issue had ever been made and no reasoned case management decision was taken to allow it to proceed. The man had been prejudiced in being deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence against the claim and, therefore, fairness required the appeal to be allowed.

It was not possible for the woman to prove detrimental reliance necessary for a constructive trust on the man's promise of equal ownership based on his asserted intention to marry her or in her giving up rented accommodation to live with the man at no expense.

Appeal allowed.



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