Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2014 #138The appellant (Jaci) and the respondent (Sunil) were sister and brother-in-law respectively. This case related to the beneficial ownership of a property which Sunil had identified as a business opportunity (for Sunil to run as a B&B). Due to Sunil’s poor credit rating, the property was purchased in Jaci’s name via a mortgage, also in her name. Both parties agreed that there was an express oral agreement between them as to the terms on which the property was bought and held. The terms of that agreement were disputed and each party argued that they owned the beneficial inte...
Graeme Fraser examines the complexities of applying strict proprietary principles to financial remedy cases when dealing with intervenors’ interests Compelling evidence is required to infer that (subsequent to the purchase of the property) the parties intended a change in the shares in which the beneficial ownership is held As the outlook for future growth in …
Continue reading "Intervenors: Shared interests"
This post is only available to members.
Richard Shepherd looks at cases in which confiscation orders compete with financial provision claims ‘When assessing an entitlement to property for the purposes of confiscation, the ordinary and familiar common law principles of ownership and “interest” should apply.’ I must confess that I like the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and the law …
Continue reading "Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002: Dual interests"
This post is only available to members.
Amin v Amin is an interesting application of the test in Stack v Dowden, as Sofie Hoffman discusses ‘This article considers only a discrete part of the judgment relating to the determination of the beneficial interests in Kingswood Manor, particularly given the complex family relations, both business and domestic, which were governed by a mixture …
Continue reading "Constructive Trusts: House rules"
This post is only available to members.
Luke Barnes highlights the cohabitant cases that fall outside of the judgment in Jones v Kernott and the applicable case law ‘The claimant in sole name cases continues to face a stern test to establish a beneficial interest by virtue of an inferred common intention. In particular, it continues to be unclear what conduct may …
Continue reading "Trusts: Different rules"
This post is only available to members.
Graeme Fraser and Adam Colenso explain the nature and timing of advice that residential property lawyers should provide to cohabitant buyers in light of Jones v Kernott and the SRA Code of Conduct 2011. ‘Jones v Kernott [2011] illustrates the serious problems that can arise when cohabitant purchasers do not enter into an adequate declaration …
Continue reading "Co-Habitation: Buyer beware"
This post is only available to members.
