header-logo header-logo

31 January 2008 / Sarah Greer
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Housing
printer mail-detail

Back to the bad old days?

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll