Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 – Law Journals

Joint ownership: Common intention and detriment

Mark Pawlowski provides an update on whether detriment is a necessary requirement in joint ownership cases involving the family home The deal was sufficient to establish the common intention and the common intention was sufficient to establish the constructive trust. There has been considerable debate as to whether a claimant seeking to establish an enlarged …

Continue reading "Joint ownership: Common intention and detriment"

This post is only available to members.

Detrimental reliance: An unwelcome development

Oliver Foy explains why the reasoning in Hudson v Hathway is both wrong and undesirable in the context of common intention constructive trusts Common intention on its own does not justify a trust. Something more is needed to obviate s53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and bestow the beneficiary with a beneficial interest. …

Continue reading "Detrimental reliance: An unwelcome development"

This post is only available to members.

Common intention constructive trusts: An agreement unravels

Professor Sukhninder Panesar considers a case where the court was required to consider whether a common intention construction trust arose on a transfer of property that was made under mistake Having established that the defendant did not have an interest under a common intention constructive trust, the question was what relief the court would grant …

Continue reading "Common intention constructive trusts: An agreement unravels"

This post is only available to members.

Joint ownership: Common intention and detriment?

Mark Pawlowski considers whether detriment is a necessary requirement in joint ownership cases involving the family home In a joint names case… the decision suggests that, once the claimant has established entitlement to a share in equity, the amount of their share may vary, or ambulate, following a change in the common intention without the …

Continue reading "Joint ownership: Common intention and detriment?"

This post is only available to members.

TOLATA 1996: A holistic approach

Mark Pawlowski looks at how the courts calculate the parties’ beneficial shares when events post-acquisition give rise to a claim to an enlarged share in the jointly owned family home ‘The courts take a holistic approach to the question of the assessment of the parties’ respective shares, so that, although financial contributions play an important …

Continue reading "TOLATA 1996: A holistic approach"

This post is only available to members.