Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB); [2022] WTLR 973 QB

TOLATA 1996: No harm done

Hannah Viet examines whether common intention alone will satisfy a change in the parties’ property interests in joint name cohabitant disputes In Hudson v Hathway, there was no dispute as to whether there was an express agreement between the parties, so the sole issue to be determined on appeal was whether the judge at first …

Continue reading "TOLATA 1996: No harm done"

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 …

Continue reading "Trusts: Doing away with the need for detrimental reliance"

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.