Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
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...
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