- Everything (84)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (0)
- Case note (34)
- News (16)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (3)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (1)
- Judgment (28)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The wife had applied for an occupation order for a property. The husband had claimed that the marriage certificate was a forgery. The judge found that there was a marriage and the husband was a serial liar. The husband now sought permission to appeal the findings and the consequent orders, and an extension of time to do so. Williams J allowed the appeal, on the basis that the hearing was procedurally irregular and the outcome consequently unjust. The matter was remitted to the Family Court. Judgment, 25/06/2019, free
- Claim for damages after the claimant cohabitee claimed that she had been deceived by the defendant in spending her divorce settlement money on a lavish lifestyle after he promised to pay her back and buy her a house when his own divorce had concluded. Satisfied that but for the respondent’s deceit the claimant would not have paid any of her capital to fund "her share" of expenditure on the lavish lifestyle, the claimant was awarded £300,000 plus interest in damages. Judgment, 16/07/2018, free
- On the evidence presented before the court, and judged by the doctrines of common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, the court found that the claimant had not proved her case that there had been an agreement between her and her cohabitee that she would share any profit after the farm, which was legally owned by the defendent, was sold. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
- Appeal against a decision by the Court of Appeal in the Bahamas that it had been the intention of the parties, who had been in a personal relationship for nearly 17 years, that they should hold various investment properties in equal beneficial shares. The appeal was allowed - the Court of Appeal’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to permit a conclusion that it was the common intention of the parties that the beneficial interest should be shared was unsustainable. The case was remitted for hearing before the Supreme Court of the Bahamas. Judgment, 26/05/2017, free
- This case concerned a requirement in the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2009 that unmarried co-habiting partners be nominated by their pension scheme member partner in order to be eligible for a survivor's pension. The survivor must also show that he or she has been a cohabitant for two years before the date on which the member sent the nomination and has been in that position for two years before the date of death. There is no similar nomination requirement for married or civil partner survivors. The Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland included a nomination requirement in the 2009 Regulations in order to ensure “parity” with other local government pension schemes in Scotland and England and Wales, which at the time had similar requirements. The Supreme Court declared that the requirement in the 2009 Regulations be disapplied and that the appellant was entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under the scheme. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
- Husband's application to appeal a non-molestation order against him and an occupation order in respect of the parties' matrimonial home. Application dismissed. Judgment, 05/12/2016, free
- Appeal against order stating that the appellant had only a 20% beneficial interest in the former family home. Appeal dismissed Judgment, 26/07/2016, free
- Appeal against a ruling that the circumstances in which the ex-partner of the owner of a property had paid £500 a month for several years as a contribution towards the expenses of running and maintaining the property gave rise to a proprietary estoppel. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 05/04/2016, free
- Application for declaratory relief pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 where the applicant claimed that she was the sole beneficial owner of 2 of the 4 properties the couple owned and that she had an 82% interest in another of the properties. Judgment, 18/03/2016, free
- Appeal against finding that a former cohabitee had a 25% interest in a property that was owned by the appellant but from where the respondent runs a business. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 14/09/2015, free