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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

PROPERTY: Wallbank & Wallbank v Price [2007] EWHC 3001 (Ch)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : wallbank-and-wallbank-v-price-2007-ewhc-3001-ch
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 28, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88913

(Chancery Division; 28 November 2007; Lewison J)

The married couple took a transfer of the property under the right to buy scheme, as beneficial joint tenants. A year later, the marriage had broken down; shortly after the wife left the property she signed a handwritten document stating that she revoked any rights in the disposal of the property, but that the couple's daughters should receive her half-share of property on its disposal. When the husband died intestate the wife sought to have the agreement set aside for undue influence, on the basis that she had gone in fear of her husband.

The wife's allegation that the document had been signed because she was frightened of the husband had not been made out. Interpreting the document as a whole, the document was an agreement between the two joint tenants, severing the joint tenancy in equity. Under the agreement the husband thereafter held the beneficial interest in the property on trust as to one half for himself and the other half for himself until disposal of the property, at which time the half share would vest in the daughters; the husband further had a discretion to vest the half share in the daughters' favour before disposal.

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