Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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