Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Read on

Cohabitee beneficial interests: Curran v Collins (£)

Date:9 SEP 2015
Third slide
Don McCue Barrister 11 Stone Buildings

The Court of Appeal in this 'sole name' case did not take the opportunity to review the Lloyds Bank vs Rosset threshold test in sole name cases despite recent indications in the Supreme Court that it should be revisited. The trial judge had correctly applied the law as it stands; the appeal was based on criticisms of the judge’s findings of fact which the Court of Appeal held were without merit. Consequently the Court was able to and did dismiss the appeal without reviewing the Rosset tests.

However the Court did consider the principles applicable to establishing a beneficial interest by inference from an excuse. Comparison of the judgments with the classic excuse cases of Eves vs Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338 and Grant vs Edwards [1986] 1 Ch 638 reveals a possible distinction between an excuse containing an express representation – 'it would be in our joint names except...

Read the full article here.