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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
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