header-logo header-logo

24 July 2008 / Sarah Greer
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

No more nonsense

Separated couples should expect the courts to take a robust approach in quantifying shares in the family home in future. Sarah Greer explains why

The quantification of beneficial interests in the quasi-matrimonial home has been problematic for the courts over many years. Separating couples have often given no thought to the legal implications of their house purchase, and rarely make express provision for the division of the property in the event of a relationship breakdown. Despite the Law Commission's best efforts, legislation designed to assist the parties in dividing up their home now seems unlikely in the near future. In the absence of this, in Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [2007] All ER (D) 208 (Apr), the House of Lords helpfully set out guidelines for the courts in approaching such cases. However, subsequent decisions, such as Adekunle v Ritchie (2007) WTLR 1505, have demonstrated the difficulty faced by the lower courts in applying these guidelines. In Fowler v Barron [2008] EWCA Civ 377, [2008] All ER (D) 318 (Apr) the Court of Appeal has at last seized

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll