Trusts of land: What justifies the award of occupation rent?

John Sharples outlines a case that clarifies occupation rights Ali illustrates the importance of properly analysing the nature of the occupying beneficiary’s interest at the outset and seeking the proper relief on behalf of the proper claimant for the correct amount. In what circumstances can a beneficiary of a trust of land who does not …
This post is only available to members.

Wills: The effect of joint tenancies

Kieran Forsyth reviews a case that demonstrates the importance of obtaining a notice of severance of a joint tenancy and filing it at the Land Registry Dunbabin is notable for the fact that it demonstrates that the execution of mirror wills can be sufficient to sever a beneficial joint tenancy, even if those wills are …
This post is only available to members.

Trusts: Doing away with the need for detrimental reliance

Guy Holland analyses whether a cohabitee’s beneficial interest can be varied by express agreement alone In finding that detrimental reliance was not the only route to establishing unconscionability, Kerr J has identified a clear distinction between the approach to be adopted in single name and joint name cases. It is well established that detrimental reliance …
This post is only available to members.

Rowland v Blades [2022] WTLR 269

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186

The parties were in a relationship from 2006. In 2008 they acquired a property in their joint names which they held as beneficial joint tenants, which was intended for use at weekends and holidays. In 2009 the parties separated. The respondent asked the appellant not to take his new partner to the property, and he agreed. The respondent spent most weekends there until the proceedings commenced and an order for sale was made. The appellant argued that he had been excluded from the property from 2009 until 2018, and claimed occupation rent. The respondent argued the appellant had voluntari...

Rowland v Blades WTLR(w) 2022-02

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Ralph v Ralph [2021] WTLR 1443

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185

The claimant was the son of the defendant. The parties were the registered owners of a residential property. The property was purchased through a mortgage which was obtained using the claimant’s earnings. The defendant paid the balance of the purchase price meaning that the claimant made no contribution. The TR1 was signed by the transferors but not the claimant and defendant as transferees, but nevertheless contained a manuscript cross in Box 11 recording that ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant claimed a ...

The Law Society v Dua & anr [2021] WTLR 1469

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185

Between 2011 and 2013, the claimant obtained multiple charging orders in respect of five properties registered in the joint names of Mr and Mrs Dua. The Duas occupied four of the properties as a single residence, known together as ‘Fulmer House’. The other was a separate property known as 49 Sudbury Avenue.

The Duas had purchased 49 Sudbury Avenue in 1987 and occupied it as their family home until 2004. The purchase had been funded by a mortgage and the Duas’ evidence was that Mr Dua alone had made the mortgage payments. In 1992/93 and 1995, there were two major extensions to 49 S...

Contentious probate: Conflicts between trustees and beneficiaries

Property trusts without liquid assets and no right to rent can cause difficulties for trustees facing proceedings. Nicola Phillipson analyses a case that considers these issues and more The distinction between situations where trustees have put themselves in a position of conflict and where they have been put there by the terms of the trust …
This post is only available to members.

B v C & ors [2021] WTLR 1

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

A was survived by C, his sister; H, with whom he had had a relationship; E and F, who were the daughters of A and H; B, with whom A had also had a relationship; and G, the son of A and B. C was one of the executors of A’s will. Each of A and C owned 50% of the shares in X Ltd (the company) and on A’s death C remained a director and was in control of the company. During A’s lifetime, a property (Property 1) was acquired in his name and remained so at his death.

There were three claims following A’s death: (1) H claimed to be the beneficial owner of Property 1 (the property claim); ...

Guest & anr v Guest WTLR(w) 2021-05

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

The respondent (who had been the claimant at first instance) was the eldest son of the two appellants. He had worked on the family farm full-time for some 33 years, until his relationship with his parents deteriorated. The respondent then brought proceedings against the appellants seeking a declaration of his entitlement to a beneficial interest in the farm on the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel. At first instance, the court found in his favour, concluding that the first appellant had consistently and over time led the respondent to believe that he would inherit a sufficient sta...