Family Law Hub

Pettitt v Pettitt [1969] UKHL 5

Judgment, published: 24/05/1969

Items referring to this

  • Appeal against an order which held that the parties held beneficial shares in their jointly owned property as tenants in common in the ratio 85:15. Appeal dismissed. Judgment, 10/12/2015, free
  • The wife sought declarations in relation to 2 properties which she argued were wholly or mainly beneficially owned by the husband, notwithstanding that (i) the legal title to Property 1 was held in the four names of the husband and his family, and there was a signed TR1 declaring that they hold it as tenants in common in equal shares, and (ii) the legal title to Property 2 was in the sole name of the husband's brother. The wife's applications were dismissed. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • In a tweet: Distillation of Jones v Kernott Case note, 28/04/2014, free
  • Consideration of equitable accounting where the trustee in bankruptcy was enforcing an estranged husband's share of a house he had never lived in but where his estranged wife lived with the couple's children. The house had been re-mortgaged in joint names for financial reasons after estrangement (previously it had been in the wife's sole name) but the husband had not contributed to any mortgage repayments. Judgment, 07/04/2017, free
  • Appeal against finding that the appellant had only a 25% beneficial interest in a property in which she had lived unmarried with her partner for over 33 years and that was now subject of possession proceedings. She also appealed against decision that her share be paid out of remaining proceeds of sale. Both appeals dismissed. Judgment, 10/02/2015, free
  • Husband's appeal against the refusal of a stay of the wife's applications under ToLATA in respect of the parties' former matrimonial home, and under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for a school fees order and child maintenance, was dismissed. Judgment, 13/11/2018, free
  • High value financial provision case where the wife sought orders which would enable her to receive all the properties in this jurisdiction together with a lump sum equivalent to half the value of the Russian properties whose sole beneficial owner was the H. The total assets, or at least those that could be ascertained against the non-disclosure of the H, were worth over £107m and all the properties, apart from the FMH, were held within various company structures and worth in excess of £14m. The judge held that all the UK properties were held on resulting and constructive trusts for the H and the W was awarded over £53m. Child maintenance orders of £20,000 pa per child were also made. Judgment, 15/08/2013, free
  • Judgment, 06/05/2004, free
  • Judgment, 12/11/2012, 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
  • Judgment, 25/04/2007, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, free

Published: 24/05/1969

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item