CICT - Expansion in the field

Question 1

what is it important to remember when criticizing CICT?

Answer 1

• why it was set up in the first place

- if it’s okay to expand beyond that (like commercial probs not)

Question 2

what was CICT originally for?

Answer 2

• for separating romantic couples

- hale said in stack that concerns domestic consumer context

Question 3

what was dealt with in Laskar 2008?

remember Neugeberger dissented in stack

Answer 3

• resulting trust principles applied to mother daughter situation on purchase of investment flat
• this was a small commercial investment
• found his resulting trust approach, where you follow the money put in and do the proportions like that, was applicable here

Question 4

what happened in the mother and son shared home case of Ritchie 2007?

Answer 4

• still domestic consumer context where you don’t plan for things going wrong
• so going beyond romantic relations

Question 5

what happened in the Crossco case?

Answer 5

CICT and a small family business can happen in principle
(seen as way to get around commercial constructive trust)

failed on facts

Question 6

what was the sebastianelli 2012 case?

Answer 6

flatmates, sebastianelli put in most by far

• trial judge said it was CICT (even though single legal owner) but though props should be 50/50
• CA said intention they could infer is that props should be money put in (changed when seb started putting in more)

Question 7

what did judges say about expanding CICT further in Crossco no4?

Answer 7

• uneasy
  (minority so not binding)
• CICT created to respond to lack of legislation to adjust property rights for romantic couples
• involves interdependence and cooperation, which commercial cases don’t have!