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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll