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
Authors

PROPERTY: Thomson v Humphrey [2009]

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : thomson-v-humphrey-2009
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 9, 2009, 08:27 AM
Article ID : 85865

(Chancery Division; Warren J; 25 June 2009)

The man and woman were in a relationship. After a time the man purchased the property in which the woman was then living with her children. Subsequently the woman moved out of this property, and went to live with the man. The original property was sold and a new property was purchased; the woman and the man cohabited in this new property. Although the man tried to get the woman to sign a 'living together agreement', acknowledging that she had not brought any assets into the relationship, the woman refused to sign any such agreement. When the relationship eventually broke down, the woman asserted a beneficial interest in the property. The question for the court was whether the purchase of the original property meant that the woman was beneficially entitled to the proceeds of sale.

There was a very high burden of proof in such cases, and the evidence relied on by the woman did not establish that she had acquired a beneficial interest in either the original or the new property.

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