Latest updates
- 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
- Application to lift freezing injunction on an investment property which was registered in the ex-wife's name but which the ex-husband claimed he had bought at an auction (they were married under Sharia Law not civil). The injunction was discharged because the claimant's submissions that there was a direct resulting trust could not succeed so the matter could proceed to trial to determine the beneficial interests. Judgment, 28/07/2016, free
- Cohabitation case where the judge dismissed the claimant's claim to be a beneficiary of a constructive trust, but upheld her alternative claim to an enforceable equity by operation of proprietary estoppel, ordering the appellant to pay her £28,500. The appellant's appeal against that ruling was dismissed. Judgment, 17/10/2014, free
- Application to appeal a finding that there was a constructive trust based upon the common intention of the cohabiting parties and that under that constructive trust, each party had a 50 per cent share in the property. Permission to appeal was granted. Judgment, 03/09/2014, free
- Dispute between a Russian husband and wife, where the husband argued that a half share of the beneficial interest in a multi-million pound London property was held on trust for him absolutely, whilst the wife argued that the whole of the beneficial interest was held by the first respondent on trust for the second respondent. Judgment, 02/05/2013, free
Latest know-how
- Dispute between a Russian husband and wife, where the husband argued that a half share of the beneficial interest in a multi-million pound London property was held on trust for him absolutely, whilst the wife argued that the whole of the beneficial interest was held by the first respondent on trust for the second respondent. Case note, 15/08/2013, members only
- Case note, 17/09/2012, free
- Case note, 04/09/2012, members only
- Case note, 27/04/2009, members only
Latest training
- Questions to accompany Christopher Wagstaffe QC's recent talk. CPD course, 25/04/2014, members only
Documentation
Using the Hub
Searching
Notices
T&Cs
Privacy
Legal Materials Copyright Statement & Disclaimer
Find out More
What's on the Hub
What's included in your membership
About Us
Contact Us
Stay up to date
Read about our free email alerts
Sign up here
Share