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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

PROPERTY: Qayyum v Hameed [2009] EWCA Civ 352

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : qayyum-v-hameed-2009-ewca-civ-352
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 27, 2009, 07:23 AM
Article ID : 84857

(Court of Appeal; Pill, Moore-Bick and Etherton LJJ; 27 April 2009)

The property was in the joint names of the husband and wife. The property had been purchased for the wife to live in while the husband was working abroad, using a mortgage from the husband's employer plus joint funds from the sale of another property. When the employer went bust the husband signed a deed stating that the property belonged to the wife solely as her residence. Over 10 years later the claimant sued the husband for breach of contract, obtaining a freezing order against the husband. Subsequently, the husband and wife jointly obtained a mortgage, charging the property in order to obtain money for the husband's legal costs, and also for repairs to the property. The husband mistakenly believed that he could not fund his legal costs in any other way, because of the freezing order, and he communicated this mistaken understanding to the wife. The husband gave a personal covenant to support the mortgage. Later, the wife argued that she was the sole beneficial owner of the property, and that the husband had no interest in it; she repudiated the mortgage on the basis that it had been entered into on the basis of a misrepresentation by the husband, albeit an innocent one. The judge held the deed making the wife the sole beneficial owner had been valid, but that the act of charging the property had given rise to a constructive trust under which the husband and wife reverted to equal beneficial shares, notwithstanding the misrepresentation.

The judge had been entitled to conclude that there had been an agreement between the husband and wife that involved not only mortgaging the property, but also transferring to the husband half the beneficial interest in the property. The charging arrangement had involved substantial detriment to the husband, making him personally liable for the obligations and liabilities under the mortgage. Although the agreement had been made only because of the husband's innocent misrepresentation concerning the effect of the freezing order, the judge had been entitled, and correct, to find that a constructive trust arose in any event. The court would have refused rescission of the agreement, because it would not have been possible to restore the husband to the position he was in before execution of the mortgage. It would be an unusual case in which rescission for innocent misrepresentation would have been refused in respect of a concluded and binding agreement, but the same misrepresentation would be held to have prevented the creation of a common intention constructive trust.

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