Williams v Williams & ors [2024] WTLR 1137

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2024 #196

In 1986, a farm known as Cefn Coed was purchased by Mr and Mrs Williams and one of their sons, the appellant. There was no express declaration of trust. Mr and Mrs Williams and the appellant were in a partnership and the partnership paid the mortgage on Cefn Coed. The wills of Mr and Mrs Williams dealt with Cefn Coed as though it was held on a tenancy in common in equal shares and Mr Williams was found to have served a notice of severance of any joint tenancy before his death. Mrs Williams and then Mr Williams passed away. It was determined that Cefn Coed was not a partnership asset but,...

Rowland v Blades WTLR(w) 2022-02

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Khan v Mahmood [2021] WTLR 639

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2021 #183

In 1997 the respondent and the appellant jointly purchased a property, contributing to the purchase price equally. The appellant and his family occupied the property. In 2007 the respondent was investigated for benefit fraud, and represented to the local authority that he had no beneficial interest in the property, being merely a nominal trustee for the appellant. He repeated that assertion in evidence before the Magistrates’ Court in defence of criminal charges, and later at the First-tier Tribunal in other proceedings. In March 2007 the respondent signed a form TR1 purporting to ...

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); ...

Beneficial ownership: Marring the deal

Context is everything when defining the common intention constructive trust. Aidan Casey QC and Tom Poole discuss recent case law Marr has changed the way courts should approach disputes about the beneficial ownership of family-owned investment property portfolios. It has been recognised since the decisions of the House of Lords in Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] …
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 …
This post is only available to members.

Bhusate v Patel & ors [2019] WTLR 393

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2019 #175

The claim related to the estate of Mr Bhusate who died on 28 April 1990. His first wife (Mrs Bhusate) had died in 1971. The 1st to 5th defendants were Mr Bhusate’s children by his marriage to Mrs Bhusate. The claimant was his third wife. The 6th defendant was the only child of Mr Bhusate and the claimant.

Mr Bhusate died intestate. Letters of administration were granted to the claimant and the 1st defendant on 12 August 1991. The estate principally comprised a property in London where the claimant and Mr Bhusate lived (the property). The property remained registered in Mr Bhusate’...

Jointly Held Assets: Owning it

Richard Adams clarifies the current position on beneficial ownership in the event of relationship breakdown ‘What the case highlights of course is the importance of those in relationships of this nature to document clearly their intentions as to respective ownership, and indeed to do so prior to any investment being made.’ The Privy Council recently …
This post is only available to members.

Cohabitants: Seeking clarity

Chris Bryden and Jyoti Wood analyse the Privy Council decision in Marr v Collie and the significance of a commercial aspect to a personal relationship ‘The Privy Council has made it abundantly clear that it is intention, not presumption, that matters.’ In Marr v Collie [2017] the Privy Council was concerned with an appeal in …
This post is only available to members.