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

BANKRUPTCY/PROPERTY: Supperstone v Hurst [2005] EWHC 1309 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:22 PM
Slug : supperstone-v-hurst-2005-ewhc-1309-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 15, 2005, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86289

(Chancery Division; Michael Briggs QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court; 15 June 2005) [2006] 1 FLR 1245; [2005] BPIR 1231

The husband was declared bankrupt in 2001 and his trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for possession and sale of the matrimonial home. When the property was transferred to the husband and wife in 1984 there was no declaration as to beneficial ownership although they made written statements regarding percentage interests in connection with the husbands proposed IVA in 2001. The issue before the High Court was the size of beneficial interests of the parties as tenants in common. The relevant legal principles were extracted from Chadwick LJ's judgment in Oxley v Hiscock [2004] 3 WLR 715. The common intention that might be inferred from conduct at the time of purchase or subsequent to the purchase has to be a common intention entertained by the parties as at the time of purchase. If there was no discussion as to their shares at the time of purchase each is entitled to a share that the court considers fair. It would be unfair for the wife to obtain a determination from the court that her interest exceeded 50% in litigation between herself and a trustee of creditors when the husband and wife had made earlier statements to the same creditors that they were equal beneficial owners for the proposed IVA.

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