Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
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...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
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