CICT - resurge of Rosset and reform Flashcards
1
Q
what happened in Curran 2015?
A
- man lies about why women can’t be on legal title
- ## there wasn’t an express agreement to share, so applying OG Rosset would have ended the claim
2
Q
what did Arden do to Rosset in currant 2015?
A
- woman needed to show that she had ‘reasonably believed’ that the common intention was to have a share and then relied on it to her detriment
- willing to infer an agreement of shared interest
3
Q
what was the case of O’Neill 2020 case?
A
CA endorsed the requirement of detrimental reliance of Curran
(made people realise they really meant this modified version of Rosset)
4
Q
what did report from law commission on cohabitation say?
A
- want to take broader more family law view as most the cases concern families
5
Q
criticisms of current CICT?
in consultation paper
A
- rules rigid and difficult to apply
- application could lead to unfairness between parties
- enquiry time consuming and expensive
- nature of the enquiry goes on for days as has to be settled by judge
- uncertain
- makes effective compromise difficult as hard to predict how case will turn out
6
Q
what is perhaps the biggest flaw of CICT?
A
- doesn’t look to parties economic situation after separation, only looks at what was put in
7
Q
what was the suggested remedy?
no proposal bills succeeded yet
A
- common intention to share property in a particular proportion
- requires ability to show economic sacrifices would mean it unfair for them to get OG proportions
- would need eligibility requirements
- there would be discretionary factors like children (brand new)
more family law that property law principles
8
Q
what is the Australian alternative to CICT?
A
UNCONCIOUSABILITY
9
Q
what is the Canadian alternative to CICT?
A
unjust enrichment
