Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Government publishes strategy to tackle child sexual abuse
The Home Secretary has published a new strategy to protect children from child sexual abuse.The strategy sets out the government’s vision for preventing, tackling and responding to child sexual...
A system that re-abuses victims is not a system fit for purpose
You don’t get four conjoined domestic abuse cases heard speedily by the President in the Court of Appeal - in the middle of a pandemic upending the family justice system - when just a few...
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory reports on private law applications​
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has published a report on private law cases in England and Wales. The report 'Uncovering private family law: Who’s coming to...
The Family Solutions Initiative – a response to a system in crisis
The Family Solutions Group (‘FSG’) report, entitled What about me?: Reframing Support for Families following Parental Separation leaves us in no doubt as to the problems which are...
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from