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
emma.reitano@lexisnexis.co.uk.
Cohabitee beneficial interests: Curran v Collins (£)
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Don McCue Barrister 11 Stone BuildingsThe 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 for…' and one which does not – 'it is not in joint...
Read the full article here.
