header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 May 2022 / Julia Petrenko , Ashpen Rajah
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Features , Property , Family
printer mail-detail

Cohabitee disputes: unconscionability without detriment?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
80829
Hudson v Hathway: Julia Petrenko & Ashpen Rajah discuss a surprising ruling on detrimental reliance
  • In Hudson v Hathway, the High Court held that equitable shares in a family home, purchased in joint names, could be varied by a subsequent common intention even in the absence of detrimental reliance or a change of position.
  • The case will be of significant interest to property law and family law practitioners alike for its interpretation of the decisions in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.

Practitioners will be familiar with the principles on equitable co-ownership and constructive trusts, laid down by the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] All ER (D) 208 (Apr) and the Supreme Court in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53, [2011] All ER (D) 64 (Nov). The recent decision of the High Court in Hudson v Hathway [2022] EWHC 631 (QB), [2022] All ER (D) 76 (Mar) is important as it determines, for the first time, that detrimental

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll