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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles


Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : q-v-q-2008-ewhc-1874-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 31, 2008, 06:25 AM
Article ID : 88789

(Family Division; Black J; 31 July 2008)

The matrimonial home, worth about £2 million, was registered in the name of the husband's brother. Both the husband and the wife claimed that the property was beneficially owned either by the husband or by the husband and the wife jointly. The property had originally belonged to the husband's father; the father had transferred the property and other assets to the husband and the husband's brother in order to avoid inheritance tax. However, the father had privately attached conditions, with the aim that he would retain control of the transferred assets. When the husband got into financial difficulties, the husband's interest in the property was transferred to the brother to protect it from the husband's creditors. Subsequently, the husband and wife agreed to sell their own home, and move into the property, spending their own money on renovating the property, which was in a terrible state, in return for an assurance that the property would become their home. Documents, including a deed of gift whereby the brother gave his beneficial interest in the property to the husband, were prepared, and a number of shares were earmarked to go to the brother on the father's death. However, on the father's instructions the property transfer, although signed and stamped, was not registered by the brother with the Land Registry. The father and brother claimed that the property had been held by the brother on trust for the father and that the husband had, at best, a right to occupy the property.

The husband and wife had acted to their detriment in reliance on the agreement with the father and the brother; further, the contemporaneous documentation established clearly that the common intention at the time had been that the husband was to receive the beneficial interest in the property. The facts gave rise to both a clear proprietary estoppel and a constructive trust. The father's claim that he had retained the beneficial ownership of the property even after transferring legal ownership to the husband and his brother could not be pursued because, in effect, the father was pleading an illegal purpose.

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