header-logo header-logo

03 June 2016
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

United apart

Can family court proceedings under Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989), effectively for the family home to be preserved for the benefit of the minor children of the unmarried parties, be linked up with family court proceedings under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (ToLATA 1996) for that very same property to be sold? If so, presumably they should be heard at the same time rather than consolidated but should this be in the county court or the family court?

Where there are contemporaneous applications before the court under these two Acts and questions arise in both as to property interests or the sale or preservation of property, the proceedings should be heard at the same time and by the same judge if possible: see W v W (Joinder of Trusts of Land Act and Children Act Applications) [2003] EWCA Civ 924, [2003] All ER (D) 252 (May). ToLATA 1996 applications are not family proceedings and cannot be heard in the family court; conversely the CA 1989 application (unless

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll