31 January 2008 / Sarah Greer

Issue: 7306 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Housing

printer

mail-detail

Back to the bad old days?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The courts are adopting an inconsistent approach to cohabitee disputes, says Sarah Greer

Once again in recent months the Court of Appeal has been required to grapple with the thorny issue of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel in the context of the family home. Once again, its decision demonstrates the difficulty for the courts in consistently applying well-established legal principles in circumstances where even the parties themselves struggle to identify their intention or expectations with any degree of clarity.

JAMES v THOMAS

In James v Thomas s [2007] EWCA Civ 1212, [2007] All ER (D) 373 (Nov), the claimant, Sharon James, claimed that she had acquired a beneficial interest in a property registered in the sole name of her former partner, Peter Thomas. The couple had met after Mr Thomas had acquired the property, known as “The Cottage”. In 1989, Ms James moved into The Cottage, and lived there until the couple separated, some 15 years later, in 2004.

From the outset,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Back to the bad old days?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The courts are adopting an inconsistent approach to cohabitee disputes, says Sarah Greer

Once again in recent months the Court of Appeal has been required to grapple with the thorny issue of constructive trust and proprietary estoppel in the context of the family home. Once again, its decision demonstrates the difficulty for the courts in consistently applying well-established legal principles in circumstances where even the parties themselves struggle to identify their intention or expectations with any degree of clarity.

JAMES v THOMAS

In James v Thomas s [2007] EWCA Civ 1212, [2007] All ER (D) 373 (Nov), the claimant, Sharon James, claimed that she had acquired a beneficial interest in a property registered in the sole name of her former partner, Peter Thomas. The couple had met after Mr Thomas had acquired the property, known as “The Cottage”. In 1989, Ms James moved into The Cottage, and lived there until the couple separated, some 15 years later, in 2004.

From the outset,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation

NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’

Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies

NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins

Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid

NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements

The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation

back-to-top-scroll