header-logo header-logo

29 May 2026 / Laura Tanguay
Issue: 8163 / Categories: Features , Property , Trusts
printer mail-detail

Deal or no deal?

251064
© Getty images
Laura Tanguay on what a recent decision teaches us about handshake deals & property ownership
  • The High Court in Uddin v Uddin confirmed that informal oral agreements to change beneficial ownership of property are unlikely to succeed without clear evidence of detrimental reliance.

Disputes over family property often arise where ownership arrangements are informal or poorly documented. The High Court’s decision in Uddin v Uddin [2026] EWHC 150 (Ch) serves as a clear reminder of the limitations of such arrangements, particularly where parties seek to rely on alleged oral agreements to alter beneficial ownership. As the case demonstrates, the courts will not always rescue families from the consequences of informality.

The dispute

The dispute concerned two brothers, Fakar and Jamal, and their respective interests in a family home. Although the property was initially acquired in one brother’s sole name, the parties shared an understanding that it would be owned equally. This intention was later formalised by way of a transfer into joint names, creating a joint tenancy.

In the

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll