Continue reading "Cohabitation: No further forward"
Cohabitation: No further forward
![](https://www.lawjournals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/02/harbottle-lewis-square-150x150.png)
A father made repeated promises to his son that he would inherit an undefined part of a farm, sufficient to enable him to operate a viable farming business on it, after the death of his parents. Relying on that promise, the son spent the best part of his working life on the farm, working at very low wages and accommodated in a farm cottage. After a deterioration in the relationship between the father and son, it proved no longer possible for the two to work together, and the son therefore moved out, and the father cut him out of his will.
The son claimed an interest in the farm as...
Mr Sahota issued a Part 8 claim to enforce a charging order over Mr Rajan Sohal’s interest in a property known as 31 Windsor Road. There were three deeds in respect of the subject properties, dated 5 October 2012, 7 August 2015 and 17 May 2019, purporting to grant Pooja Sohal, Mr Sohal’s wife, and Veena Sohal, Mr Sohal’s mother, interests in 31 Windsor Road. These deeds, if valid and effective, would have reduced the equity in 31 Windsor Road to the extent that there was unlikely to be any equity to satisfy Mr Sahota’s charging order. Mr Sahota challenged the three deeds on the basis tha...
Continue reading "Cohabitation: No further forward"
Continue reading "TOLATA 1996: No harm done"
Angela and John Dunbabin purchased a property known as 29 Beverley Place, Springfield, Milton Keynes (the property) in 1983. The conveyance was silent as to the beneficial interests though it contained a declaration that either of the purchasers could give a valid receipt for capital money arising on a disposition of land. With the assistance of Terry Oldfield, a professional will writer, they executed ‘mirror’ wills giving their own share of the property to trustees upon trust for sale and to hold the net rents and profits and the net income from the sale proceeds in trust for the other...
The parties had started a relationship in 1990. Mr Hudson had moved into Ms Hathway’s home and become joint owner. They did not marry and had two sons. The home was sold and another bought in joint names. In 2007 they purchased Picnic House with a mortgage. It was again purchased in joint names with no declaration of trusts. They separated in 2009, with Ms Hathway staying at Picnic House. The mortgage was converted to an interest-only mortgage. It continued to be paid from a joint account into which both of their salaries had been paid.
In July and August 2013 there was an exchang...
Continue reading "Trusts of land: What justifies the award of occupation rent?"
Continue reading "Wills: The effect of joint tenancies"
Continue reading "Trusts: Doing away with the need for detrimental reliance"
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...