CICT Flashcards
What is the aim of CICT
to adjust couple’s property rights upon failure of relationship
what did Pettit v Pettit and Gissing v Gissing establish
they both established that it is possible for someone who isn’t a legal owner to have a beneficial interest in the family home, under a constructive trust
CICT usually applies to who (2)
mortgage lenders
cohabiting couples
what did Appleton, Burns and Stack v Dowden argue
that the law isn’t supposed to be fair and reasonable, when acquiring who gets what share of the property
2 stage test in Rosset
1) is there an express agreement to share property
2) detrimental reliance?
how can we establish detrimental reliance (2)
- direct contributions to purchase price
- onerous labour
Grant v Edwards outcome
applying Eves v Eves:
- there was express agreement to share home
- yes there was detrimental reliance- indirect payments are DR
Geary v Rankine outcome
no intention to share home expressed
Rosset outcome (3)
- A joint venture to renovate home does not amount to an implied agreement to share ownership
- she did what most partners do
- outcome: she loses- bank sells house to pay debts
Thomson v Humphrey outcome (3)
- must go beyond what a normal person would do
- detriment must be real and in reliance, and no agreement to share ownership
- she did not have a beneficial interest in the home
James v Thomas outcome
vague assurance will not amount to agreement to share home
- there will be no beneficial interest
Ungurian v Lensoff outcome
evidence must be convincing
Culliford v Thorpe outcome (3)
- there was agreement to share/ co-own
- what is the detriment? the building work he did
- outcome: there was a common intention in equal shares
after the acquisition stage, what comes next
the quantification stage
Springette v Defoe
usually what you put in is what you get out
Midland Bank plc v Cooke
- flexible approach
- both got 50%
- evidence of equal partnership
Oxley v Hiscock- what did the court seek to do
the court seeked to broaden the circumstances in which a person might prove a common intention by allowing such intention to arise from all of the facts and circumstances of the case
Oxley.v Hiscock outcome
Ms Oxley had a beneficial interest in the home, and although her share was not equal to the initial cash contribution, the other payments she made were to be taken into account
gender stereotype case
Cooke v Head (No 1)
acquisition stage- 2 cases
- Rosset
- Stack v Dowden
quantification stage case
Stack v Dowden
what was held Stack v Dowden (3)
- where legal title was held jointly, beneficial interest would be held jointly
- presumption may be displaced where there is evidence that this was not their intention
- couple did not intend their shares to be equal- they kept everything separate
Stack v Dowden outcome
- court held the parties’ beneficial shares in the property should reflect their financial contributions towards it
- the beneficial shares were unequal because the couple kept finances and everything separate
why did Piska critique lady Hale’s judgment in Stack
-what does her list of factors suggest …
- she argued that Hale’s background in family law influenced how she constructed intention
- her list of factors suggest that an intention to share will depend on whether the parties’ relationship indicates a shared life
what was held in Graham-York v York
the court is not concerned with redistributive justice
what was the main analogy in Jones v Kernott (CICT responds to what?)
CICT responds to a change of intention
what stage do Stack, and Jones both apply to
the quantification stage for SLO and JLO cases
which case followed Stack
Aspden v Elvy
Laskar v Laskar analogy
most CICT involve romantic couples, but this case involved a commercial investment between a mother and daughter
